View Single Post
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:29 PM   #191
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
The following is what Dr. Peter Gill says about the reality of DNA-contamination in the Kercher case. And I'm even going to provide the link which you can check!!!!!!! Just to see if I'm making all this up.

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S...033-3/fulltext

Highlights:
- Transfer of DNA found on the evidential material was either contamination or ‘innocent’.

- (Hellmann and Zanetti) acquitted Knox and Sollecito, accepting defence arguments on the lack of evidence and contamination.

- Given the proven innocence of Knox/Sollecito we are confronted with multiple instances of the CSI effect, where prosecutors, scientists and judges, allow speculation to override logical thought processes.

- One officer who handled the knife at police headquarters had been in Kercher’s apartment, and specifically in Knox’s room, earlier in the day. Police officers did not remove other knives or test them to control for background contamination.

- (the knife) was allegedly tested approximately seven days after the last testing of a sample belonging to Kercher. Anti-contamination procedures were not documented (or disclosed);

- it is unknown if or how surfaces were sterilized; what protective equipment was used; whether equipment was cleaned after each run; or how often technicians changed gloves. This was contrary to the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) guidelines on contamination prevention (for example) which state clearly: “There must be written procedures for cleaning and decontamination of facilities and equipment.”

- (Gill criticizes the Nencini court for reversing the implication of Stefanoni not providing documents concerning control runs to Conti and Vecchiotti.)

- (Nencini's) was also a serious error of interpretation. The negative control is simply a blank or empty tube run concurrently with the samples in the laboratory beginning at the extraction stage of the analytical process. Consequently, it can only be used as a control for potential reagent contamination. It cannot be used to discount possible contamination, either at the crime scene or in the examination room.
I'm not going to go on, you can read it for yourself.

Suffice it to say that you can read a forensic-DNA expert (who also may or may not be an astrologer in his spare time) completely discredit Stefanoni's work, as well as the judicial mistakes that both Massei as well as Nencini made, when they tried to be the "expert of the experts".
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 2nd August 2017 at 01:34 PM.
Bill Williams 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