Originally Posted by Vixen
For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.
Originally Posted by
bagels
Peter Gill wasn't a defense expert. He was never part of the case. Had nothing to do with Knox's exoneration. He was just a private citizen that took interest in a blatant miscarriage of justice and used his substantial expertise to give his own opinion. It's a real thorn in the side for the PGP, whose experts consist of online psychics and obsessive internet weirdos.
Why does Vixen have to lie to make points in this thread. As you say, bagels, no one close to this case was ever Dr. Peter Gill's "client".
Instead of hurling abuse at people, rather than dealing with/refuting their claims, why does Vixen not provide one, just one forensic-DNA expert who actually agrees with Stefanoni's original work?
It seems that slander and abuse is the only tool in Vixen's toolbox.