Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

The reason I call him sincere is because I don't recall this contributor engaging in the hate thing. The list is useful because every item has a straightforward explanation (this is axiomatic)

There is a key to unlock this case, someone will find it soon.

ETA I do not believe there is an innocent explanation for 165B. I am satisfied it is planted, because this is a straightforward explanation. Noble cause corruption.
A short extract from wiki

Types of misconduct include false confession, false arrest, falsified evidence, false imprisonment, intimidation, police brutality, police corruption, racial profiling, surveillance abuse, and off-duty misconduct.[4] Others include:
Noble cause corruption, where the officer believes the good outcomes justify bad behavior[5]

I understand that posting against the party line on such boards gets one banned almost immediately. Could you send a PM to the poster to see if they are willing to reconsider their position?

 

[Samson]

I understand that posting against the party line on such boards gets one banned almost immediately. Could you send a PM to the poster to see if they are willing to reconsider their position?

I just read that board but have joined dot net for happy Tuesdays, though yet to post. Ergon is cut from slightly different cloth, he is sort of civilized and replies to evidential posts. DF you know you can read the PMF.org without joining don't you?

Here is Popper, a clinical Italian on the board. Posted today

On politics nobody really knows but I would find very surprising if US SoS protected a malicious sexual assassin who accused an innocent black man of murder.

The problem with branding as lunatic fringe is simply that they are within a heart beat of gaining the satisfaction of ratification for their views.

 

[Desert Fox]

I just read that board but have joined dot net for happy Tuesdays, though yet to post. Ergon is cut from slightly different cloth, he is sort of civilized and replies to evidential posts. DF you know you can read the PMF.org without joining don't you?

Here is Popper, a clinical Italian on the board. Posted today
On politics nobody really knows but I would find very surprising if US SoS protected a malicious sexual assassin who accused an innocent black man of murder.
The problem with branding as lunatic fringe is simply that they are within a heart beat of gaining the satisfaction of ratification for their views.

You wrong me here. . . .I don't really consider such people a "lunatic fringe" but stuck in the thought pattern of guilt. I hope I am not stuck in the though pattern of innocence but I could be.

The one thing is that such comments are common. There are a lot of people who have circular reasoning where anybody convicted of a crime has to be guilty. Read a bunch of comments in a local paper's website from the conditional pardoning on the Norfolk Four.

 

[Samson]

You wrong me here. . . .I don't really consider such people a "lunatic fringe" but stuck in the thought pattern of guilt. I hope I am not stuck in the though pattern of innocence but I could be.

The one thing is that such comments are common. There are a lot of people who have circular reasoning where anybody convicted of a crime has to be guilty. Read a bunch of comments in a local paper's website from the conditional pardoning on the Norfolk Four.

You thus excuse, or do so with faint condemnation. That means you are excusing the prosecuting family, Kercher. I can not and will not, because the proof is absolute by multiple pathways they are wrong.
This is the most clear case I have seen in a lifetime of watching, unequivocal proof of innocence.
I liken it to this.
I release an egg from a static hand.
Does it break on the floor or the ceiling?

 

[Desert Fox]

You thus excuse, or do so with faint condemnation. That means you are excusing the prosecuting family, Kercher. I can not and will not, because the proof is absolute by multiple pathways they are wrong.
This is the most clear case I have seen in a lifetime of watching, unequivocal proof of innocence.
I liken it to this.
I release an egg from a static hand.
Does it break on the floor or the ceiling?

To a certain extent, I do not care who considers AK/RS guilty. What I care about the most is that they do not spent another day in prison and want them to be exonerated.

If you have looked at the case, I assume that you pretty clearly believe the Norfolk Four to be just as innocent? They also appear to have been previously law abiding with nothing beyond maybe a speeding ticket. While I do not believe the West Memphis Three are guilty either, at least they have dings

That was of little comfort Thursday to Moore-Bosko's parents.

"It is truly shameful and a disservice to the citizens of Virginia and our family, that the decisions of the courts have been ignored, and confessed rapists and murderers are being set free," John and Carol Moore said in an e-mail. They live in Pittsburgh.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/08/kaine-pardons-three-four-97-rapemurder-navy-wife

Kind of of the attitude of accept that the parents of murder victims will never accept that they are not guilty and just work around them. With the Norfolk Four, they still seem to believe that there were eight involved. I have been in those apartments and going to have a hard time even getting eight people into a room.

 

[Samson]

To a certain extent, I do not care who considers AK/RS guilty. What I care about the most is that they do not spent another day in prison and want them to be exonerated.

If you have looked at the case, I assume that you pretty clearly believe the Norfolk Four to be just as innocent? They also appear to have been previously law abiding with nothing beyond maybe a speeding ticket. While I do not believe the West Memphis Three are guilty either, at least they have dings

That was of little comfort Thursday to Moore-Bosko's parents.

"It is truly shameful and a disservice to the citizens of Virginia and our family, that the decisions of the courts have been ignored, and confessed rapists and murderers are being set free," John and Carol Moore said in an e-mail. They live in Pittsburgh.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/08/kaine-pardons-three-four-97-rapemurder-navy-wife

Kind of of the attitude of accept that the parents of murder victims will never accept that they are not guilty and just work around them. With the Norfolk Four, they still seem to believe that there were eight involved. I have been in those apartments and going to have a hard time even getting eight people into a room.

DF I will check NF4 again, and have no doubt of your findings. My preoccupation is accelerating to find the locking piece for exoneration also before it is too late. I have just posted to AK blog ideas for the break in. It is an amazingly straightforward proof the rock was hurled from outside.

 

[Desert Fox]

DF I will check NF4 again, and have no doubt of your findings. My preoccupation is accelerating to find the locking piece for exoneration also before it is too late. I have just posted to AK blog ideas for the break in. It is an amazingly straightforward proof the rock was hurled from outside.

I think with AK/RS, there is plenty of evidence of them not being guilty of sexual assault and murder. I don't think you will find any evidence convicting the Italian courts if they do not want to be convinced. I don't see a demonstration of a rock throwing convincing them.

 

[Samson]

I think with AK/RS, there is plenty of evidence of them not being guilty of sexual assault and murder. I don't think you will find any evidence convicting the Italian courts if they do not want to be convinced. I don't see a demonstration of a rock throwing convincing them.

The rock throw was the first event in the composite crime. Prove who did it to explain the crime narrative,
This is pool/snooker/billiards.
Exoneration is a stone cold certainty, but timing is everything.

 

[Desert Fox]

The rock throw was the first event in the composite crime. Prove who did it to explain the crime narrative,
This is pool/snooker/billiards.
Exoneration is a stone cold certainty, but timing is everything.

I am sorry, I am not so certain. I hope that they are exonerated but sometimes horrible things happen to good people and it is never resolved. There are a number of cases in the US where people have been released from prison but are still considered convicted criminals - Added to the two groups I listed before (N4/WM3), Sarah Pearce is another example.

 

[Samson]

I am sorry, I am not so certain. I hope that they are exonerated but sometimes horrible things happen to good people and it is never resolved. There are a number of cases in the US where people have been released from prison but are still considered convicted criminals - Added to the two groups I listed before (N4/WM3), Sarah Pearce is another example.

In this instance the crime scene photographs are more than sufficient. History seldom has plain evidence like this. I could lead a class of seven year olds through this evidence.

 

[Desert Fox]

In this instance the crime scene photographs are more than sufficient. History seldom has plain evidence like this. I could lead a class of seven year olds through this evidence.

It doesn't matter. My introduction to false convictions was watching a show about the Norfolk Four. It was a pro guilt program. Watching it and I raged inside at these innocent sailors being convicted of rape and murder. Just seemed obvious to me.

What may seem obvious to you does not always work that way.

 

[Dan O.]

DF I will check NF4 again, and have no doubt of your findings. My preoccupation is accelerating to find the locking piece for exoneration also before it is too late. I have just posted to AK blog ideas for the break in. It is an amazingly straightforward proof the rock was hurled from outside.

I would like to see this taken a step further. There are 3 potential launch points for the rock: from the yard below, from the wall of the parking area and from the slope between those two. Physics may be able to deduce which position was used.


I don't believe that there can be a single locking piece that will resolve this case. There are already numerous examples of evidence showing innocence and in each case the prosecution simply injects a theory without evidence to hold onto their position of guilt. The breakin was staged, missing footprints were cleaned up, bleach didn't remove the DNA, the slipped away and murdered Meredith while Curatolo wasn't looking. This has gone far beyond absurdity and it is my belief that those still arguing for guilt are simply deluded and lack the mental capacity to see the truth or they are aware of the truth and are entrenched in the big lie rather than admit being wrong. They have long ago stopped arguing in good faith.

 

[Grinder]

That's ridiculous. The storage container and how it was employed is indeed a possible source of contamination in this case. Just because you don't like how he put it when talking off the cuff but ignore that the essence was correct doesn't score you any points in your attempt to dismiss the analysis of one of the very top scientists in his field. That's a pathetic display of bias.

Once again I wish to request a list of all those neutral DNA experts that have spoken to this case affirming the work of Stefanoni.

In the specific discussed above wasn't it the case that the officers involved in placing the knife in the box were involved in other aspects of the case and had in fact been to the cottage and had handled other evidence that could contain MK's DNA.

Anglo has made the point that no DNA was found on the knife in any case. Similar spots that tested low were not retested and Stef never identified what the alleged substance was.

So I agree that the box most certainly wasn't the source of the "DNA" but was just another example of lack of protocol by the ILE.

If the knife was cleaned well enough to get all the blood off then Amanda's DNA would certainly have been deposited there after the cleaning not during the murder; therefore, where it was on the knife makes no difference and can't be used to determine how it was held or by whom during the murder.

Future comments by experts should list the problems with the DNA work by categories. Major testing errors, minor (or miner) testing errors, major collection errors, minor collection errors, etc. should be on the list. The box would most likely fall to a lower level than, for example, collection with dirty gloves or leaving the bra part in an unsecured cottage.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Gill basically admits that he based his analysis on information provided by Vecchiotti. He assumed that what Vecchiotti told him about the case was true and was all the truth and took it face-value.
We all know Peter Gill did not access directly the data, for instance he never read Stefanoni and Vecchiotti's cross questionings or Novelli's report and was never cross-questioned himself.

This is true. Peter Gill, sorry to say, is naive - and for a "scientist" there's no worse condemnation.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Get with the program here. If you read what the discussion has been about, it has been about the entry point of the rock into the window in Perugia, not the Seattle incident.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is true. Peter Gill, sorry to say, is naive - and for a "scientist" there's no worse condemnation.

Yes, yes, we know what Italy thinks of scientists
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/22/us-italy-earthquake-court-idUSBRE89L13V20121022

 

[js202]

js202,

After having to endure years of poor science from the prosecution, it is a pleasure for me to read Dr. Gill's book and to see how he would have practiced the scientific method with respect to this case. He outlines a couple of experiments that should have been done: one to test the hypothesis that the location of DNA tells us whether the knife was used for food preparation or for stabbing someone, and another to test the hypothesis that one can clean a knife of blood but not DNA. He is sharply critical of the former hypothesis (saying that it has no support in the forensic literature) and sounds skeptical of the latter.

Absolutely. I greatly respect the careful thinking and patience you have given to this case and cause.

Dr. Gill's conclusions only serve to buttress the facts that: 1) the irrational habits of the pro-guilt side will not countenance reason nor restraint, and 2) you have employed the scientific method on your own terms and in your own time, and have been on the right track all along.

 

[js202]

This is true. Peter Gill, sorry to say, is naive - and for a "scientist" there's no worse condemnation.

Your ilk will not fail to stoop to any level of willful obtuseness and stupidity to reaffirm its entrenched beliefs, will it?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

best practice manual

Gill basically admits that he based his analysis on information provided by Vecchiotti. He assumed that what Vecchiotti told him about the case was true and was all the truth and took it face-value.
We all know Peter Gill did not access directly the data, for instance he never read Stefanoni and Vecchiotti's cross questionings or Novelli's report and was never cross-questioned himself.

Machiavelli,

What you are arguing is utter tripe. The videos showing how the evidence was collected and the electropherograms are there for everyone to see. John Butler, the author of a respected textbook on DNA profiling, wrote, “In my opinion, over the past three decades no one has done more to advance forensic DNA analysis and interpretation than Peter Gill.” By contrast Dr. Novelli's main research interest is not forensic DNA; he is not in the same league.

Dr. Novelli claimed that contamination must be proved; this claim is ridiculous, as I have pointed out with examples may times in these threads. Dr. Gill wrote, (p. 34) “It will always be difficult to prove cross transfer of DNA.” We all know from the videos that the FP did not change gloves, and I have given citations which show that they should have been. Dr. Gill wrote, “…the principle of cross transfer mediated by latex gloves is demonstrably high risk.” Dr. Novelli said that there were guidelines, but that the investigator must use common sense. An appeal to common sense usually sounds reasonable on the surface, but this one begins to crumble under closer examination. When does common sense suggest it is better not to change one's gloves? to have multiple people handle one item? to open and repackage an item of evidence? to test an item with methods that have never been validated? Dr. Gill wrote (p. 35), “If there is even a remote possibility that items have been handled inappropriately, then cross-transfer must always be put forward as a realistic explanation, and the crime scene investigation is therefore compromised. The European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) provide best practice manuals (ENFSI, 2008) for investigators to follow.” So much for the blather we sometimes hear about there being no international standards.

 

[Desert Fox]

I like a comment I just heard from Steve Moore that when you are hiding the DNA evidence, that means that the DNA evidence is not good. If the DNA evidence is good, you want the defense to have the evidence so that they are willing to plead.

Don't know if it has been posted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LaAM7ufOWk