|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
2nd August 2017, 12:20 PM | #161 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
Here's the Peter Gill quote:
Quote:
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 |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:25 PM | #162 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
LOL! You're citing an astrologer, claiming that as a peer review of Peter Gill's work. LOL!
For the umpteenth time - it is not up to a court to find contamination, or up to the defence to provide a route for contamination. As presented here countless times, a lab which does LCN work must be certified for it, which Stefanoni's lab was not. When I asked for a forensic-DNA expert who would back Stefanoni's work, I wasn't asking for an astrologer's point of view. |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:30 PM | #163 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:31 PM | #164 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:31 PM | #165 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 6,753
|
Actually i should thank Vixen for bringing this up. Fr B is a finger print of Guede. For some reason this is not numbered like other prints. Despite there being this fingerprint at the crime scene and despite Guede's fingerprints being on record it was not an attempt to identify this fingerprint that identified Guede which just goes to show that the police made little or no attempt to identify the unknown fingerprints (although a bloody handprint was just too obvious a clue to ignore).
|
2nd August 2017, 12:33 PM | #166 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:35 PM | #167 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
Your link was to a 100-page report which did not (readily at least) confirm your claim. Where you got the pics you posted is still unclear. Did you photoshop them yourself?
At least this is slightly better than posting pics which show the actual opposite of what you claimed they showed. |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:36 PM | #168 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
I probably am. I've seen that kind of bullying behaviour used as a substitute for actual evidence. It's also been used by bullies "just because", for the fun of it.
You seem to use it as a way to avoid presenting evidence which you claim is true - like one forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's work. |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:37 PM | #169 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 6,753
|
So you disagree with the forensic scientist who was there at the time and testified that Sollecito's fingerprints were on the outside. Do you really know better than the people who were present and did the testing?
"There are two unattributable prints on the desk (Fr. 63) and two on the door (Fr.72) Two prints matching Raffaele Sollecito (Fr. 68 and Fr. 72) are on the outside of the door." They are colour coded to make it easy! |
2nd August 2017, 12:38 PM | #170 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
Do read Agatino Giunta's testimony, where he states under oath:
Quote:
'Fr 68, Fr 72 [ x 2] - MK's door to her room, Fr 86 Kitchen/Living room (fridge) and Fr 12 in Laura's room. ' See earlier link. Look at the photos for yourself. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:40 PM | #171 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:40 PM | #172 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 863
|
What does it say at the top of the fingerprint map?
"DIREZIONE CENTRALE ANTICRIMINE SERVIZIO POLIZIA SCIENTIFICA UACV" so it should be clear "who/what the original source for the diagrams are". Well, it looks like whoever made that "fingerprint map" mislabeled the prints on the inside of Meredith Kercher's bedroom door. This is from the final fingerprint report made by the Direzione centrale anticrimine della polizia di Stato (page 6):
Quote:
|
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..." |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:42 PM | #173 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,272
|
Wow Italians couldn't secure a conviction with fingerprints of the perp on the inner door covered in blood! Incredible prosecution team!
|
2nd August 2017, 12:42 PM | #174 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
2nd August 2017, 12:42 PM | #175 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
|
Vixen constantly bangs about the overwhelming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. The fact PGP posters have to lie so much makes a complete mockery of this claim. If you have to resort to lying to argue the case for guilt, there is no case for guilt. Lying to argue your case indicates two things. Firstly, there is a lack of genuine evidence and the only way PGP can argue their case is to make things up. As can be seen from Vixen’s posts she constantly makes things up. If there is a slam dunk case, you should never have to resort to making things up because there should be plenty of genuine evidence to base your arguments on. Secondly, the facts don’t support your case, there are flaws in the prosecution’s case and the only way you can argue your case is to tell lies which contradict the facts. We see numerous examples of this in Vixen’s posts which I detailed in the post below. The fact Amanda showed grief over Meredith’s death which was supported by witness testimony goes against the case for guilt. Vixen has to lie that Amanda showed no guilt which contradicts witness testimony. The fact there was no human biological material such as cells and tissue on the knife is a major problem with the knife. Vixen has to lie Stefanoni found human tissue on the knife to cover up this problem. The fact experts who did not work for the defence could not rule out a single attacker undermines the notion there had to be multiple attackers. To cover this up Vixen has to lie only defence lawyers argued for a single attacker. If the facts support the case for guilt, you should never have to lie about the facts.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562 As I have mentioned previously PGP posters have displayed disgusting hypocrisy when attacking Amanda and Raffaele for telling umpteen lies whilst telling umpteen lies themselves. When PGP bang on about the supposed umpteen lies told by Amanda and Raffaele, I feel there is an element of projection and when PGP talk about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies they are referring to the umpteen lies they tell themselves. |
2nd August 2017, 12:44 PM | #176 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:46 PM | #177 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
2nd August 2017, 12:49 PM | #178 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
I copied the photos from the police photo file (public domain) and for your ease of reference captioned them for you.
I even gave you fingerprint expert Giunta's direct quotes under testimony confirming these five particular fingerprints are Raff's. I told you precisely on what page Peter Gill's own assertion that secondary transfer is unlikely to yield a full profile >24 hours (p76 -77). What thanks do I get? |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:51 PM | #179 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 6,753
|
"It is simple to find the contaminated negative control in Batch 4. Stefanoni’s own quantification results for Real Time run no. 564 show the negative control (NTC, or No Template Control) located at wells B10-12, and well B11 shows a “Ct” value of 34.30. (Quantificazione p. 14)"
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...ificazione.pdf Look at the results yourself. This is why access ('discovery') to the laboratory records is essential. Steffanoni testified that she had no contamination yet the negative control contained detectable human DNA; this is contamination. |
2nd August 2017, 12:52 PM | #180 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
Read Giunt'as testimony.
There are THREE prints on the door of Raff's. #68 is on the outside of Mez' door. OK so far? #72 is TWO prints on the metallic part of the inner edge of the door. Giunta identifies them as Raff's. Clear now? |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
2nd August 2017, 12:55 PM | #181 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
A shadowy guilter pseudo-named Harry Rag/The Machine at one time listed these supposed-lies, as well as an anonymous blogger whose blog is now off-line.
Here's a re-post of what (unless someone can add to it) the alleged lies either Knox or Sollectio told.... There you go. See if you agree whether or not these are bona fide lies. Compare and contrast with the lies told about Raffaele and Amanda. |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
2nd August 2017, 01:04 PM | #182 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,272
|
|
2nd August 2017, 01:04 PM | #183 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
2nd August 2017, 01:07 PM | #184 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
2nd August 2017, 01:09 PM | #185 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
2nd August 2017, 01:11 PM | #186 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
2nd August 2017, 01:12 PM | #187 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 6,753
|
Whether Gill said this or not is irrelevant as evidence has been posted that DNA transfer is detectable beyond 24 hours. Logically there is no reason for a time limit on transfer. If DNA is detectably present it is transferrable (by definition as it has to transfer from the site on to the swab to be detectable).
ETA let us consider transfer as proposed by Vixen Transfer 1 DNA from Kercher on Knox Transfer 2 (secondary) DNA of Kercher from Knox's hands on to basin (along with Knox's DNA a primary transfer). Transfer 3 (tertiary) DNA of Kercher from the basin onto the swab (along with Knox's DNA a secondary transfer). If we consider the Luminol positive prints that were DNA positive. Transfer 1 Kercher's DNA onto floor. Transfer 2 Kerchers DNA from floor onto Knox's feet Transfer 3 Kercher's DNA from from Knox's feet to floor Transfer 4 Kercher's DNA from floor (some six weeks after the murder) to swab. Now if we are to believe Vixen a quaternary transfer of DNA six weeks later is impossible so we can only conclude that the forensic police must have made up the results. |
2nd August 2017, 01:16 PM | #188 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,272
|
Since Raffaele never had any reason to step foot in Meredith's room in the one or two times he visited the cottage, and since he never admitted to ever doing so, and since his fingerprints were found on the inside of her door after the murder, I have no choice but to become a 100% born again guilter. It is now me and Vixen vs the world.
My only regret is that the prosecution did not make this damning evidence the front centerpiece of their case, and instead went with blood negative DNA negative blurry stains, and tales of floating turds. He got away with it |
2nd August 2017, 01:24 PM | #189 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
|
2nd August 2017, 01:29 PM | #190 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
|
2nd August 2017, 01:29 PM | #191 |
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’.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. |
|
2nd August 2017, 01:32 PM | #192 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
I'm to blame. Vixen tried to get into the buildings housing Cassation on the Tiber in Rome, but I'd said to her, "O look! Squirrel!" and she got distracted. Before she could recover with this view-changing evidence, Cassation had acquitted and exonerated the pair.
Definitively. My bad. |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
2nd August 2017, 01:36 PM | #193 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
Oh Bill, will you never learn??
Here's a perfect example of how it actually works. Ready? OK: Here's the Michael Jackson quote: Try listening to Michael Jackson's "You are not alone" where he contradicts himself on the premise of the song by saying you are "alone" (0:59 into the song) - From a review by LondonJohn 0:59, Bill! 0:59 |
2nd August 2017, 01:55 PM | #194 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,607
|
|
2nd August 2017, 02:16 PM | #195 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 910
|
|
2nd August 2017, 02:26 PM | #196 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 863
|
|
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..." |
|
2nd August 2017, 02:27 PM | #197 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
Delete
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
2nd August 2017, 03:23 PM | #198 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,607
|
Well, I'm not sure who put your little collage together but it contains some mistakes. First, so as to ensure we're dealing with the correct information, here's Giunta's court testimony; *** Giunta: We can repeat it, I'm 17 - we said what reliefs are - 5 fragments at Sollecito Raffaele are the relief 12), we can even say the annular and left little finger, it was found ... Comodi: I know it, but not as much as I do. Here, where has this fingerprint been found? Giunta: Inside the bedroom door behind the living room with kitchenette on the ground floor. Massei:In the bedroom ... Giunta: The ground floor is the only floor we have also done because ... Massei:Excuse me, what bedroom? Comodi: And so, in short, the famous edge of the Mezzetti room, the Mezzetti room door, right? Giunta: 12) should be that of the Mezzetti. Then the 68), the left palm, the outside face of the victim's bedroom door. Comodi: Outside? Giunta: External face, then external face access. Comodi: Yup. Giunta: Pad 70) left thumb, victim's bedroom outdoor door side and 1'86, pad 86) left palm at fridge door. Comodi: Well, these are the ones that have been attributed to your Solicitors by your colleagues? Giunta: Exactly, 5 fragments etc, etc. 1 fragment was attributed to Knox, and it is the relief 103) the right glass index found on the kitchen sink. *** To summarize; (12) Laura's bedroom door (68) Outside face of Meredith's door (70) Outside face of Meredith's door (86) Refrigerator So, the mistakes in your collage; 12 is from Laura's door, not the refrigerator 86 is from the refrigerator, not Laura's door 68 and 70 are from the outside of Meredith's bedroom door. Giunta makes no mention of Fr. 72. That's because Fr. 72 was unidentified and so not relevant. The print diagram is entirely correct except they wrote 72 instead of 70 for the second print on the outside of Meredith's door, as proven by Giunta's testimony. If you think any of this is incorrect then please provide Giunta testimony that contradicts the testimony I quoted above. Clear now? ETA: Interestingly, in your collage you correctly point out that Fr. 12 constitutes two of Sollecito print fragments - the ring finger and the little finger - yet you go on to claim there are three prints on the door, Fr. 68 and two prints identified as Fr. 72. If this was true then there would have been six Sollecito fragments, not five. Who the hell is doing your proof thinking? ....I'd fire 'em! |
2nd August 2017, 03:30 PM | #199 | ||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Ergon <snip> does not provide the surrounding context of what he claims Gill wrote. In fact, unless he has a copy of the book itself, all he can read from it is from the "Look Inside" search on Amazon. And this is the only part that Ergon paraphrases:
Quote:
By looking at the Look Inside results on Amazon, we can see that Gill is discussing published scientific literature but we cannot see what Gill himself is saying about it. This is the abstract describing the chapter wherein pages 76-77 are included:
Quote:
So, no. PAGE 76-77 is not providing a quote from GILL. It merely cites the pages from which ERGON is paraphrasing something that Gill is referencing.
|
||
2nd August 2017, 03:57 PM | #200 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
I can guess who drew up that diagram with the wrong information. Speaking of incorrect photoshopped creations. who can forget Knox's shoeprint being found on the paper in Filomena's room?
Can I be forgiven for getting some satisfaction (ok....a good laugh) when Vixen provides the links that actually disprove her own claims? |
Thread Tools | |
|
|