View Single Post
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:20 PM   #161
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Why does Vixen do this? Does she think we cannot click on the links she herself provides? Why does she post pics of windows at the cottage saying, "Here's a pic with no bars on the window", when the pic itself shows that there are?

Why does Vixen say that Vecchiotti said, "Vecchiotti confirmed under oath that there was no contamination risk in Stefanoni's lab," when Vecchiotti said no such thing? Why does Vixen say that Dr. Gill said that secondary transfer not happen after 24 hours when he said no such thing? Why does Vixen claim that Prof Novelli confirmed Stefanoni's forensic work, when what Novelli's told the court was that Stefanoni had not followed international protocols on multiple amplifications?

These are not even subtle mistruths. Imagine someone wandering onto this thread with no knowledge of this case whatsoever - why does Vixen think that posting demonstrable lies will convince them of Vixen's own views?

As Welshman repeats - if the case against RS and AK had been such a slam dunk, why resort to lies? Why?

Here's the Peter Gill quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Try reading Peter Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" where he contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77)
- From a review by N Ahmed

As for Vecchiotti, as I have pointed to her testimony under oath when she asked several times whether Stef's labs were contaminated was forced to concur they were not.

Citation please from the court documents that the laboratory was contaminated.

No court found any contamination in the lab.

As for Novelli on Stefanoni at the Nencini Appeal (from a review of the Netflix film):

He upholds that the Forensic Police, aside from some human error, acted correctly and dismissed defence claims that Stefanoni had withheld raw data, and as claimed by ‘the experts’, citing documentary proof the information had been deposited. Nencini reinstated the convictions, 31 January 2014, and dismissed the claim of contamination. The sample on the knife ‘the experts’ had claimed was ‘starch’ and ‘too low LCN’ was successfully tested and found to be that of Amanda Knox. None of this is mentioned by Vecchiotti & Conti in the film and nor do the film makers point it out, leaving their audience to believe ‘the experts’ claim of ‘contamination is proven’.

A key finding was that Professors Novelli and Torricelli had already been the target of the criticisms raised specifically by Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, technical consultant for the Sollecito defense, at the first instance trial court, and thus was a matter settled (res judicata). This is important to note, for Marasca later describes Tagliabracci in glowing terms as ‘world renowned’ when he reinstates the Hellmann findings in this matter, at the next level. Nencini observes, ‘Finally, it is observed that Prof. Tagliabracci’s criticism is founded on an unproven and unprovable suspicion, namely that the biologist doing the work being already in possession of reference samples supposedly used the “suspect-centric” method.’

Nencini also found that the second instance [Hellman] court undervalued the fact that the tests carried out took place during the preliminary investigation [of which the Defence was notified and had the right to attend], that at the time of those tests, there were no objections concerning the sampling and laboratory activity, nor was a pre‐trial hearing requested regarding the testing, all of which proves agreement with the [laboratory] procedures.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig


Last edited by Vixen; 2nd August 2017 at 12:27 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top