ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


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.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 3rd July 2019, 06:44 PM   #601
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,006
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Actually the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy was published 24 January 2019, and became final 24 June 2019. It would have become final on 24 April 2019, but Italy requested a referral to the Grand Chamber, which was rejected by the Grand Chamber Panel. Here's the text of the title page of the judgment:

AFFAIRE KNOX c. ITALIE

(Requête no 76577/13)

ARRÊT

STRASBOURG

24 janvier 2019

DÉFINITIF

24/06/2019
And here is the conclusion or brief summation "For these reasons" of the judgment:

PAR CES MOTIFS, LA COUR, À L’UNANIMITÉ,

1. Rejette l’exception de non-épuisement des voies de recours internes soulevée par le Gouvernement quant aux griefs tirés de l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 c) et e) de la Convention ;

2. Joint au fond l’exception soulevée par le Gouvernement tiré du non-épuisement des voies de recours internes dans le cadre de l’article 3 de la Convention et la rejette ;

3. Déclare la requête recevable quant aux griefs tirés des articles 3 et 6 §§ 1 et 3 c) et e) de la Convention et irrecevable pour le surplus ;

4. Dit qu’il n’y a pas eu violation de l’article 3 de la Convention sous son volet matériel ;

5. Dit qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 3 de la Convention sous son volet procédural ;

6. Dit qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 c) de la Convention ;

7. Dit qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 e) de la Convention ;

8. Dit

a) que l’État défendeur doit verser à la requérante, dans les trois mois à compter du jour où l’arrêt sera devenu définitif conformément à l’article 44 § 2 de la Convention, les sommes suivantes, au taux applicable à la date du règlement :

i. 10 400 EUR (dix mille quatre cents euros), plus tout montant pouvant être dû à titre d’impôt, pour dommage moral,

ii. 8 000 EUR (huit mille euros), plus tout montant pouvant être dû par la requérante à titre d’impôt, pour frais et dépens ;

b) qu’à compter de l’expiration dudit délai et jusqu’au versement, ces montants seront à majorer d’un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne applicable pendant cette période, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage ;


9. Rejette la demande de satisfaction équitable pour le surplus.

Fait en français, puis communiqué par écrit le 24 janvier 2019, en application de l’article 77 §§ 2 et 3 du règlement de la Cour.
Numbers 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
Old 3rd July 2019, 06:58 PM   #602
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Actually the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy was published 24 January 2019, and became final 24 June 2019. It would have become final on 24 April 2019, but Italy requested a referral to the Grand Chamber, which was rejected by the Grand Chamber Panel. Here's the text of the title page of the judgment:

AFFAIRE KNOX c. ITALIE

(Requête no 76577/13)

ARRÊT

STRASBOURG

24 janvier 2019

DÉFINITIF

24/06/2019
Mea culpa. January not February. Some of us can admit when we've made an error unlike some people...
Stacyhs 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
Old 3rd July 2019, 06:59 PM   #603
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,006
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
And here is the conclusion or brief summation "For these reasons" of the judgment:

PAR CES MOTIFS, LA COUR, À L’UNANIMITÉ,

1. Rejette l’exception de non-épuisement des voies de recours internes soulevée par le Gouvernement quant aux griefs tirés de l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 c) et e) de la Convention ;

2. Joint au fond l’exception soulevée par le Gouvernement tiré du non-épuisement des voies de recours internes dans le cadre de l’article 3 de la Convention et la rejette ;

3. Déclare la requête recevable quant aux griefs tirés des articles 3 et 6 §§ 1 et 3 c) et e) de la Convention et irrecevable pour le surplus ;

4. Dit qu’il n’y a pas eu violation de l’article 3 de la Convention sous son volet matériel ;

5. Dit qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 3 de la Convention sous son volet procédural ;

6. Dit qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 c) de la Convention ;

7. Dit qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 e) de la Convention ;

8. Dit

a) que l’État défendeur doit verser à la requérante, dans les trois mois à compter du jour où l’arrêt sera devenu définitif conformément à l’article 44 § 2 de la Convention, les sommes suivantes, au taux applicable à la date du règlement :

i. 10 400 EUR (dix mille quatre cents euros), plus tout montant pouvant être dû à titre d’impôt, pour dommage moral,

ii. 8 000 EUR (huit mille euros), plus tout montant pouvant être dû par la requérante à titre d’impôt, pour frais et dépens ;

b) qu’à compter de l’expiration dudit délai et jusqu’au versement, ces montants seront à majorer d’un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne applicable pendant cette période, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage ;


9. Rejette la demande de satisfaction équitable pour le surplus.

Fait en français, puis communiqué par écrit le 24 janvier 2019, en application de l’article 77 §§ 2 et 3 du règlement de la Cour.
Here is the ECHR's Legal Summary (original in English):

Knox v. Italy - 76577/13

Judgment 24.1.2019 [Section I]

Article 3

Effective investigation

Lack of an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment by the police during the questioning of a person in a state of shock: violation

Article 6

Article 6-3-c

Defence through legal assistance

Use in evidence of a malicious accusation, made to the police by a person in a state of shock, without access to a lawyer: violation

Article 6-3-e

Free assistance of interpreter

Interpreter having acted as a mediator and with a motherly attitude during the questioning of a person in a state of shock: violation

Facts – At the time of the events Ms Knox, a 20 year-old American student, had been in Italy for about two months. She had found a temporary job in a pub run by D.L. Following the discovery of the body of a girl living in the same flat as the applicant, who was then present on the premises with her boyfriend, they were both interviewed by the police and their telephone conversations were monitored.

On 6 November 2007 at 1.45 a.m., the applicant was interviewed by three police officers and A.D., who had been called as an interpreter. She stated, among other things, that D.L. had committed the crimes. The public prosecutor then interviewed the applicant at 5.45 a.m., with A.D. and some police officers being present. The applicant was not assisted by a lawyer during that interview. At 8.30 a.m., the applicant, her boyfriend and D.L. were formally arrested on charges of sexual assault and murder. Having provided an alibi, D.L. was later released.

Around 1 p.m. and throughout the proceedings, the applicant spoke of her state of shock and confusion during her last incriminating interview under police pressure, and she retracted her accusation against D.L. However, on 14 May 2008, she was formally charged with bringing a malicious accusation.

Following a hearing on 13 March 2009, at which the applicant again alleged that she had been ill-treated during the interview of 6 November 2007 and complained about the conduct of the interpreter A.D., her defence requested the transmission of documents to the public prosecutor’s office, but nothing happened. Further proceedings were brought against the applicant for falsely accusing the police officers and prosecutor who had questioned her on 6 November 2007.

In September 2015 the Court of Cassation acquitted the applicant on the charges of murder and sexual assault and observed that her conviction and three-year prison sentence for the malicious accusation against D.L. had already become final. The applicant was also acquitted on the charge of falsely accusing the police officers and the prosecutor.

Law

Article 3 (procedural limb): On 6 November 2007, a few hours after making incriminating statements about D.L. and throughout the proceedings, the applicant had clearly explained that she had been in an extreme state of shock and confusion and that the police had put pressure on her. The Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 3 October 2011, had concluded that the applicant had in fact been subjected to a genuine degree of torment, placing her in an unbearable psychological situation from which she had sought to extract herself by incriminating D.L.

In addition, the interpreter had been acting more as a “mediator”, even though she was not required to go beyond her interpreting duties. One of the police officers had even embraced and caressed the applicant and had clasped her hands, thus clearly behaving inappropriately, especially in a context where she had made accusations subsequently characterised as malicious which had resulted in her conviction.

The above-mentioned behaviour, which shed light on the general conditions in which the applicant had been interviewed, should have alerted the national authorities to the possibility that her dignity and capacity for self-determination had been impaired.

In spite of her repeated complaints, the treatment complained of had not led to any investigation capable of shedding light on the facts and on any responsibilities. In particular, her lawyer’s request of 13 March 2009 for the transmission of documents to the public prosecutor had remained unanswered. Moreover, the criminal proceedings against the applicant for bringing a malicious accusation against the authorities – which had in fact led to her acquittal, as there was no evidence that her account of what had happened was inaccurate – could not constitute an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)

(a) Applicability of Article 6 – The Court reiterated that a “criminal charge” existed from the moment that an individual was officially notified by the competent authority of an allegation that he had committed a criminal offence, or from the point at which his situation had been substantially affected by actions taken by the authorities as a result of a suspicion against him. The applicant could certainly be regarded as a suspect by the time she made her statement to the public prosecutor, at 5.45 a.m. on 6 November 2007. Therefore by 5.45 a.m. at the latest, there had been a criminal charge against her within the meaning of the Convention.

(b) Whether there were any compelling reasons to justify the restriction of her right of access to a lawyer – The Government had relied on the interpretation of domestic case-law to point out that the impugned statements of 6 November 2007, even though no lawyer had been present, could be used in evidence, as they incorporated in themselves a criminal offence. The Court noted, however, that this interpretation was general in scope and the Government had failed to establish that there had been exceptional circumstances in the present case to justify the restrictions on the applicant’s right. Thus there was no compelling reason capable of justifying the restriction on her access to a lawyer.

(c) Overall fairness of the proceedings – A few hours after the interview of 6 November 2007, the applicant, who was vulnerable as a foreigner and as a young woman of 20, not having been in Italy for long and not being fluent in Italian, had promptly gone back on her statements. Nevertheless, six months later, on 14 May 2008, she was charged with malicious accusation.

The impugned statements had been taken in a context of heightened psychological pressure, which had not been investigated. And those statements had constituted in themselves the offence with which she was charged and therefore the real evidence on the basis of which she had been found guilty of bringing a malicious accusation. Lastly, the record of the applicant’s interview at 5.45 a.m. did not indicate that she had been notified of her procedural rights.

Consequently, the restriction of the applicant’s access to legal assistance during her interview of 6 November 2007 at 5.45 a.m. had irretrievably impaired the overall fairness of the proceedings.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (e): The fact that the interpreter A.D. had played the role of a mediator, adopting a motherly attitude, while the applicant, having been charged with a criminal offence, was formulating her statement, had gone beyond the duties expected of an interpreter. However, the authorities had failed to assess the conduct of A.D., to examine whether her interpreting assistance had been consistent with the safeguards under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (e) of the Convention, or to consider whether that conduct had had an impact on the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. In addition, in the relevant police record there was no mention of the exchanges between the applicant and A.D. during the interview of 6 November 2007.

That initial failure had thus had repercussions for other rights, which were separate but closely related to the right at issue, and had undermined the overall fairness of the proceedings.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

The Court also found that there had been no violation of Article 3 in its substantive limb, as there was insufficient evidence for it to conclude that the applicant had actually sustained the inhuman or degrading treatment of which she had complained.

Article 41: EUR 10,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
_______

I will point out these relevant considerations:

The final judgment Knox v. Italy is now part of international law, and Italy is obligated to abide by that final judgment according to its Constitution and the Italian Constitutional Court's decision number 113 of 2011.

The final judgment of acquittal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the charges of murder/rape of Meredith Kercher by the Marasca CSC panel is definitive; according to Italian law and the Convention, neither the criminal not the civil allegations relating to the acts charged can be revisited in any way by any Italian court.
Numbers 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
Old 3rd July 2019, 07:19 PM   #604
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
But, but, Numbers! The ECHR and the Marasca SC were BENT! Bent, I tells ya! The mafia, the Masons and even the US State Dept were all in on "the fix"!

Last edited by Stacyhs; 3rd July 2019 at 07:26 PM.
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 08:30 AM   #605
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,372
Retired Judge Hellmann wades in on the recent speaking engagement of Amanda Knox at the innocence project in Modena. Also his thoughts on the recent ECHR vindication for Knox, for a wrongful conviction that he himself participated in.

http://www.agenziaradicale.com/index...udice-hellmann

He references the media frenzy at the Modena conference, proving that the Italian media still goes for lurid details rather than sober assessment of evidence.

He also waxes surprised and somewhat frustrated that people still come up to him with, "What about the X......?" factiods, when no such X had ever been part of the case.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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
Old 4th July 2019, 09:03 AM   #606
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,865
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Retired Judge Hellmann wades in on the recent speaking engagement of Amanda Knox at the innocence project in Modena. Also his thoughts on the recent ECHR vindication for Knox, for a wrongful conviction that he himself participated in.

http://www.agenziaradicale.com/index...udice-hellmann

He references the media frenzy at the Modena conference, proving that the Italian media still goes for lurid details rather than sober assessment of evidence.

He also waxes surprised and somewhat frustrated that people still come up to him with, "What about the X......?" factiods, when no such X had ever been part of the case.

It just goes to show you that people are influenced by click bait and social media. Vixen even today constantly posts falsehoods about the case and never even concedes to contradicting video and photographic evidence.

There is a lack of maturity among a great many people when it comes to owning their mistakes. I get that embarrassment, but personally I would hate to look doubly stupid repeating something that I know was wrong just to avoid that embarrassment.

Rather look silly for a moment than wilfully stupid.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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
Old 4th July 2019, 09:16 AM   #607
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,188
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Retired Judge Hellmann wades in on the recent speaking engagement of Amanda Knox at the innocence project in Modena. Also his thoughts on the recent ECHR vindication for Knox, for a wrongful conviction that he himself participated in.

http://www.agenziaradicale.com/index...udice-hellmann

He references the media frenzy at the Modena conference, proving that the Italian media still goes for lurid details rather than sober assessment of evidence.

He also waxes surprised and somewhat frustrated that people still come up to him with, "What about the X......?" factiods, when no such X had ever been part of the case.
A guilter's reaction when they figure out the reason Rudy Guede the knife carrying window climbing burglar had Meredith's blood on his hands is because he broke in and stabbed her to death, and Amanda was just some girl who lived in the same building the Italians spend years pointlessly prosecuting with nothing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwmeH6Rnj2E
bagels 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
Old 4th July 2019, 11:03 AM   #608
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Hellmann's interview was interesting and he made very accurate comments regarding some people being able to rationally and objectively look at a situation and others, well...not so much:

Quote:
I would say that it is very much because as everyone knows very well, public opinion is not a shapeless mass: everyone has their own opinions, their degree of culture, preparation, a different ethical level. And then those who are endowed with a certain objectivity are able to realize what is then the reality underlying a crime, but most people instead follow humoral choices that are also a consequence of their own inclinations, their own instincts.

For example, as part of the Meredith trial, which I chaired, I saw how some people realized the uncertainty of the evidence against the two defendants, while I have to say that most of the people I meet even now ask me: "But so that's true? It's not true? Was it them? ”, Etc. So I have to draw the conclusion that most people are influenced by the media, while a smaller part is able to make a personal, objective evaluation ... that is subjective but objective in that it is based on real and verifiable elements.

We still see myths (to use a nicer word) proposed as fact even now after all these years. For example, Vixen very recently referenced 'mixed blood' yet again when she knows, absolutely knows, that 'mixed blood' was never, and could never be, scientifically established. It was only correctly referred to as a MK's blood/Knox DNA mix or simply as mixed DNA. If being honest and factual about the evidence does not support a position, then perhaps one needs to reassess why the need to lie about it.
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 11:09 AM   #609
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It just goes to show you that people are influenced by click bait and social media. Vixen even today constantly posts falsehoods about the case and never even concedes to contradicting video and photographic evidence.

There is a lack of maturity among a great many people when it comes to owning their mistakes. I get that embarrassment, but personally I would hate to look doubly stupid repeating something that I know was wrong just to avoid that embarrassment.

Rather look silly for a moment than wilfully stupid
.
Agreed! I know someone who consistently mispronounces a word. He's been corrected multiple times. Does he learn and pronounce it correctly? No. He would rather keep looking like an ignorant fool than to admit he was incorrect in the first place. Being able to admit a mistake shows a strength of character, not a weakness.
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 12:29 PM   #610
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Agreed! I know someone who consistently mispronounces a word. He's been corrected multiple times. Does he learn and pronounce it correctly? No. He would rather keep looking like an ignorant fool than to admit he was incorrect in the first place. Being able to admit a mistake shows a strength of character, not a weakness.
Kemosabe?
whoanellie 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
Old 4th July 2019, 01:01 PM   #611
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,006
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Retired Judge Hellmann wades in on the recent speaking engagement of Amanda Knox at the innocence project in Modena. Also his thoughts on the recent ECHR vindication for Knox, for a wrongful conviction that he himself participated in.

http://www.agenziaradicale.com/index...udice-hellmann

He references the media frenzy at the Modena conference, proving that the Italian media still goes for lurid details rather than sober assessment of evidence.

He also waxes surprised and somewhat frustrated that people still come up to him with, "What about the X......?" factiods, when no such X had ever been part of the case.
Here's another excerpt from the article cited and linked to in your post:

"Un episodio emblematico di quello che lei dice, di questa capacità di discernimento ma anche del rapporto tra media e giustizia, è dato dai filmati delle reazioni dell’opinione pubblica alla sentenza di assoluzione nel caso Kercher. Un suo commento su questo?

Sotto questo punto di vista devo dire che una gran parte della reazione - per quello che ho potuto capire successivamente - è stata un po’ orchestrata dalla Polizia rimasta delusa dall’esito del processo, che è stato istruito sotto la guida del Pubblico Ministero ma dagli organi di Polizia, Polizia Scientifica e Polizia Investigativa. Da quello che ho capito dopo c’è stata una sorta di sobillazione fuori dal Tribunale quindi… che posso dire? Posso dire che sul momento la cosa mi è dispiaciuta, perché questo significa seguire una tesi partigiana."

Google translation with my help:

"Q. An emblematic episode of what you say, of this capacity for discernment but also of the relationship between media and justice, is given by the videos of the reactions of public opinion to the sentence of acquittal in the Kercher case. Your comment on this?

A. From this point of view I must say that a large part of the reaction - for what I could later understand - was a little orchestrated by the Police who were disappointed by the outcome of the trial, which was instructed under the guidance of the Public Prosecutor however with the Police, Scientific Police and Investigative Police. From what I understood later there was a sort of uproar outside the Court so ... what can I say? I can say that at the moment it displeased me, because this means following a partisan thesis."
_____
Judge Hellmann attributes the mob scene following the acquittal of Amanda and Raffaele by the Court of Appeal he presided over to the instigation of prosecutor and the police.
Numbers 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
Old 4th July 2019, 01:28 PM   #612
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Kemosabe?
LOL! But, no. In this case it's "mischievous".
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 02:48 PM   #613
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,173
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
#1,2, & 4:


#3:


Burleigh, Nina. The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 202).

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34177293

#5:

Follain, John. A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case . St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition.

#6:
Perugia's police chief, Arturo De Felice, declared "caso chiuso" on the same day Amanda was arrested: Nov. 6, 2007.
The forensic results were first reported to Mignini on Nov. 15, 2007 more than a week after "caso chiuso" was declared.
(see location 2404, Kindle version A Death in Italy by John Follain)

#7:

Follain, John. A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case

Filomena testified that she saw glass both on top and below objects. No glass shatter analysis was ever done to determine the direction of breakage.


Follain, John. A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case . St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition.

Except is wasn't as shown in the British video.

#8 Among the false stories leaked to the media:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...er-758731.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7116184.stm


http://www.komonews.com/news/local/12643316.html

#9,#10:

See the ECHR ruling of Feb. 2109. Or shall I quote them for you?

Unlike you, Vixen, when I make a claim as fact, I can actually cite sources as evidence.
Nina Burleigh is not citation of evidence. Cite me Chieffi.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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
Old 4th July 2019, 02:51 PM   #614
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,173
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
No matter how many times you show this clip, tertiary transfer of DNA simply does not happen. Peter Gill himself said secondary transfer had to happen 'within twenty-four hours'.

There is no way Raff's very strong robust DNA on the bra clasp (found under the body BTW) could have transferred from the door to the glove (on 18 Dec 2007, week no. 6) and then to the crook in the clasp.

Stop deluding yourselves.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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
Old 4th July 2019, 02:54 PM   #615
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,173
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Wrong pop artist. "Bye Bye Bye" (as in, what the Italian Supreme Court said to to Knox's and Sollecito's murder convictions and what the ECHR said to Knox's calunnia conviction) was by NSYNC.
I get that you are ultra patriotic, Myriad, and no doubt you also feel an American SEAL should never be tried for assault or war crime.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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
Old 4th July 2019, 02:58 PM   #616
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,173
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It just goes to show you that people are influenced by click bait and social media. Vixen even today constantly posts falsehoods about the case and never even concedes to contradicting video and photographic evidence.

There is a lack of maturity among a great many people when it comes to owning their mistakes. I get that embarrassment, but personally I would hate to look doubly stupid repeating something that I know was wrong just to avoid that embarrassment.

Rather look silly for a moment than wilfully stupid.
Unlike you and your patriotic friends, I go by the court documents.


Yours and Stacyhs' sole arguments seem to be, 'Why would a nice American girl stab her roommate? It's obvious it must be the Black guy all by himself, makes sense. Can't understand how any merits court ever found the pair guilty as charged [we'll ignore that Raff isn't actually American] and we'll ignore all the forensic evidence. We can dream up an 'explanation' for everything. U.S.A! U.S.A! **** you, Italy!'
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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
Old 4th July 2019, 03:00 PM   #617
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,173
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
A guilter's reaction when they figure out the reason Rudy Guede the knife carrying window climbing burglar had Meredith's blood on his hands is because he broke in and stabbed her to death, and Amanda was just some girl who lived in the same building the Italians spend years pointlessly prosecuting with nothing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwmeH6Rnj2E
...as I was saying.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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
Old 4th July 2019, 03:11 PM   #618
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,865
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Unlike you and your patriotic friends, I go by the court documents.
ROF LMAO.

You can't be serious. If you did, you wouldn't be posting such absurd things. You would recognize the obvious. But you don't. You couldn't even admit being wrong that Amanda had chartered a private jet home even after I showed you video.

And FYI: This has NOTHING to do with patriotism.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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
Old 4th July 2019, 03:12 PM   #619
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nina Burleigh is not citation of evidence. Cite me Chieffi.
You don't like Burleigh? OK, how about the Feb 28,2009 testimony of the police officer, Stefano Gubbiotti, who said he put the knife in a cardboard box used to hold a calendar?

Quote:
QUESTION - What did he do then, he opened the envelope?
ANSWER - I had a small box, a cardboard diary holder and ...
QUESTION - Yes.
PRESIDENT - Excuse me, box and object holder is the same thing?
ANSWER - The box was a diary holder, in other words it was practically the container of a cardboard diary up to, if I am not mistaken Renato Balestra, usually we have, that we do the finds, we always keep boxes in the office so that we can find ...
QUESTION - New boxes?
ANSWER - They are practically boxes, I remove the diary from the box and I put the box aside. And so I started the repertoire.
QUESTION - Do you remember which diary was the one contained in this box?
ANSWER - No, I think it was a leather diary of the bank, something like that.
QUESTION - So you took this box.
ANSWER - I took the knife and put it inside the ...
Is that OK, or do you still require Chieffi?



Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You've made all of that up.
Can't admit I didn't make any of it up, can ya? Just like you can't admit Krissy G's claim about Guede calling the knife a 'stiletto' WAS made up.
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 03:16 PM   #620
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,173
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You don't like Burleigh? OK, how about the Feb 28,2009 testimony of the police officer, Stefano Gubbiotti, who said he put the knife in a cardboard box used to hold a calendar?



Is that OK, or do you still require Chieffi?





Can't admit I didn't make any of it up, can ya? Just like you can't admit Krissy G's claim about Guede calling the knife a 'stiletto' WAS made up.
It's lying by omission. The knife in the box did not come into contact with contamination at any stage.

The knife was found in Sollecito's apartment. There is no way Meredith's DNA could have jumped onto it via the box being sent to forensics by the police station who received the box.

Stop reaching.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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
Old 4th July 2019, 03:20 PM   #621
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,865
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Unlike you and your patriotic friends, I go by the court documents.


Yours and Stacyhs' sole arguments seem to be, 'Why would a nice American girl stab her roommate? It's obvious it must be the Black guy all by himself, makes sense. Can't understand how any merits court ever found the pair guilty as charged [we'll ignore that Raff isn't actually American] and we'll ignore all the forensic evidence. We can dream up an 'explanation' for everything. U.S.A! U.S.A! **** you, Italy!'
Still stinging over the World Cup defeat? Or that America put a whupping on the Brits at Yorktown?

Courts of merit? Like Hellman? As for forensic evidence...ALL OF IT pointed to Rudy killing Meredith....Give it up Vixen. Amanda and Raffaele ARE innocent. Neither ever committed a crime of any kind before or since the murder. They also didn't conspire after a week of knowing each other with someone neither had said more than two sentences to.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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
Old 4th July 2019, 03:22 PM   #622
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,372
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No matter how many times you show this clip, tertiary transfer of DNA simply does not happen. Peter Gill himself said secondary transfer had to happen 'within twenty-four hours'.

There is no way Raff's very strong robust DNA on the bra clasp (found under the body BTW) could have transferred from the door to the glove (on 18 Dec 2007, week no. 6) and then to the crook in the clasp.

Stop deluding yourselves.
I'm so deluded that I've just read a piece that said that the first problem with DNA forensics, is when people make sweeping generalizations about primary, secondary, and even tertiary DNA transfer.

I'm also reminded of the DNA testing on Nikumaroro Island to see if any of the artifacts found there c. 2015 had been left by Amelia Earhart in 1937. The items had been collected with proper forensic protocols, etc.

They ended up having to junk all samples because on one of them the DNA of the expedition leader, Gillespie, had been found. He'd been nowhere near the site of that item. When asking how it could have been his own DNA contaminating the batch.....

..... he was told that it's probably useless to try to second guess the potential routes of secondary or tertiary contamination, just accept it and move on.

Which the remaining guilter-nutters never do.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 4th July 2019 at 03:31 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
Old 4th July 2019, 03:25 PM   #623
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,173
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Still stinging over the World Cup defeat? Or that America put a whupping on the Brits at Yorktown?

Courts of merit? Like Hellman? As for forensic evidence...ALL OF IT pointed to Rudy killing Meredith....Give it up Vixen. Amanda and Raffaele ARE innocent. Neither ever committed a crime of any kind before or since the murder. They also didn't conspire after a week of knowing each other with someone neither had said more than two sentences to.
That's a low blow, even by your standards.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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
Old 4th July 2019, 03:37 PM   #624
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,865
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That's a low blow, even by your standards.
Sorry. But you teed that one up for me.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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
Old 4th July 2019, 03:44 PM   #625
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,372
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's lying by omission. The knife in the box did not come into contact with contamination at any stage.

The knife was found in Sollecito's apartment. There is no way Meredith's DNA could have jumped onto it via the box being sent to forensics by the police station who received the box.

Stop reaching.
Given who has the burden of proof, it is not up to a defendant nor their counsel to show a route of contamination. It's up to the accuser to show that proper anti-contamination protocols were followed.

In this case, even the one forensic expert who would testify for the prosecution conceded that the prosecution forensic police did not follow protocols.

That alone should have ended the knife and the bra-clasp as evidence. Indeed, this point is a Rorschatch Test as to how people view this case.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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
Old 4th July 2019, 03:46 PM   #626
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No matter how many times you show this clip, tertiary transfer of DNA simply does not happen. Peter Gill himself said secondary transfer had to happen 'within twenty-four hours'.
You really must keep up.

Quote:
"That's not what the journal research shows. There are article after article after article talking about not just primary transfer -- we directly contact each other -- but secondary transfer. Now we're discovering there's tertiary transfer. A study by Dr. Peter Gill, who's one of the co-authors of our paper (on Holtzclaw) as well as a co-author of a recent journal article, found quaternary transfer."
https://www.thespectrum.com/story/op...oma/338473002/

Quote:
We investigated the primary transfer of freshly deposited DNA from touched plastic, wood or metal substrates and secondary and tertiary transfer by a person wearing disposable nitrile-gloves and onto a third object. We show that with use of the new highly sensitive technologies available in forensic DNA analysis there is an enhanced probability to obtain a DNA-profile which has not been directly deposited on the object but is an outcome of one or more transfer events. The nitrile-gloves used by investigators during exhibit examination can act as a vector for DNA transfer from one item to another.
(Secondary and subsequent DNA transfer during criminal investigation,Ane Elida Fonneløp, Thore Ege, Peter Gill


Quote:
There is no way Raff's very strong robust DNA on the bra clasp (found under the body BTW) could have transferred from the door to the glove (on 18 Dec 2007, week no. 6) and then to the crook in the clasp.
Not according to Gill:

Quote:
It is accepted that the DNA profiles attributed to them were transferred by methods unrelated to the crime event itself.
Quote:
The method of collecting, handling, transporting, and analyzing the bra clasp did not conform with basic protocols to minimize risks of cross-contamination. There were numerous opportunities in this process for cross-transfer and contamination of the clasp.
Quote:
Consequently, the most likely explanation for the presence of Sollecito’s DNA is that it resulted from a contamination event, although the specific route cannot be discovered.
Quote:
... the DNA samples recovered from the knife blade and the bra clasp were the type of observations to be expected if the transfer had resulted from a contamination event.
(Analysis and implications of the miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Peter Gill.
Forensic Science International: Genetics Volume 23, July 2016, Pages 9-18

Seems Prof. Gill does not agree with you. But why let that stop you from continuing to say otherwise?


Quote:
Stop deluding yourselves.
From the evidence presented above, I'd give you that same advice.
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 03:53 PM   #627
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's lying by omission. The knife in the box did not come into contact with contamination at any stage.

The knife was found in Sollecito's apartment. There is no way Meredith's DNA could have jumped onto it via the box being sent to forensics by the police station who received the box.

Stop reaching.
Stop deflecting, Vix. You claimed I "made all of that up" which I clearly did not. But you can't admit that, can you?

You cannot possibly know that knife never came into contact with any contamination so stop saying it didn't. Besides, no one here said the knife came into contact with MK's DNA.* It was to demonstrate how unprofessionally and carelessly evidence was handled. Or do you think putting the suspected murder weapon into an unsterile box previously used to hold calendars is the correct procedure for handling evidence?

*MK's DNA was never on the knife in the first place. Stefanoni screwed up.
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 03:58 PM   #628
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Unlike you and your patriotic friends, I go by the court documents.


Yours and Stacyhs' sole arguments seem to be, 'Why would a nice American girl stab her roommate? It's obvious it must be the Black guy all by himself, makes sense. Can't understand how any merits court ever found the pair guilty as charged [we'll ignore that Raff isn't actually American] and we'll ignore all the forensic evidence. We can dream up an 'explanation' for everything. U.S.A! U.S.A! **** you, Italy!'
Oh, please! Just stop making crap up. It shows just how desperate you are. If you can't present things honestly and accurately then you need to ask yourself why you can't.

It's precisely because we DON'T ignore the forensic science...or lack of...that we believe they are innocent. WE don't rely on body language, canoodling, somersaults, buying underwear, eating pizza, or not crying enough/too much unlike what you.
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 04:27 PM   #629
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,865
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, please! Just stop making crap up. It shows just how desperate you are. If you can't present things honestly and accurately then you need to ask yourself why you can't.

It's precisely because we DON'T ignore the forensic science...or lack of...that we believe they are innocent. WE don't rely on body language, canoodling, somersaults, buying underwear, eating pizza, or not crying enough/too much unlike what you.
Very well said Stacy.

I don't know Amanda at all. If she was guilty, I would want to see justice and have her imprisoned. I don't care that Amanda is American or that she hails from my city. All of that is irrelevant.

But guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And it wasn't.

But I'm not going to argue this DECIDED case for the 1000th time with Vixen. It's over and it's been over for years. Vixen and PQ are never going to accept it. But that is their problem. Not mine.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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
Old 4th July 2019, 04:56 PM   #630
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No matter how many times you show this clip, tertiary transfer of DNA simply does not happen. Peter Gill himself said secondary transfer had to happen 'within twenty-four hours'.

There is no way Raff's very strong robust DNA on the bra clasp (found under the body BTW) could have transferred from the door to the glove (on 18 Dec 2007, week no. 6) and then to the crook in the clasp.

Stop deluding yourselves.
Originally found under the body but not collected or analyzed until 46 days later across the room and under a dirty rug among a pile of other things. Which. you. fail. to. mention. Talk about "lying by omission"!
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 05:01 PM   #631
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Very well said Stacy.

I don't know Amanda at all. If she was guilty, I would want to see justice and have her imprisoned. I don't care that Amanda is American or that she hails from my city. All of that is irrelevant.

But guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And it wasn't.

But I'm not going to argue this DECIDED case for the 1000th time with Vixen. It's over and it's been over for years. Vixen and PQ are never going to accept it. But that is their problem. Not mine.
I agree. I'd want her in prison for decades if she were guilty. There are Americans in prison around the world for crimes they did commit and that's fine and dandy with me. For Vixen to make the claim otherwise is just more evidence of the ridiculous lengths she will go to in her desperation. It's very sad really.
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 05:04 PM   #632
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,179
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No matter how many times you show this clip, tertiary transfer of DNA simply does not happen. Peter Gill himself said secondary transfer had to happen 'within twenty-four hours'.

There is no way Raff's very strong robust DNA on the bra clasp (found under the body BTW) could have transferred from the door to the glove (on 18 Dec 2007, week no. 6) and then to the crook in the clasp.

Stop deluding yourselves.


"Very strong robust" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


(Do you even actually know how many picograms of Sollecito's DNA were present on the tiny hook of that clasp (with not one picogram of his DNA on any other surrounding part of the clasp......)? Do you even know what a picogram is?)
LondonJohn 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
Old 4th July 2019, 05:12 PM   #633
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,179
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Unlike you and your patriotic friends, I go by the court documents.


Yours and Stacyhs' sole arguments seem to be, 'Why would a nice American girl stab her roommate? It's obvious it must be the Black guy all by himself, makes sense. Can't understand how any merits court ever found the pair guilty as charged [we'll ignore that Raff isn't actually American] and we'll ignore all the forensic evidence. We can dream up an 'explanation' for everything. U.S.A! U.S.A! **** you, Italy!'

Ah, I think I've spotted a flaw in your "reasoning" here, Vixen.

See, firstly you've created a rather nasty strawman by inventing all this stuff about certain commentators in this thread arguing for Knox's acquittal/innocence simply on account of her being American. Whereas every single one of those people about whom you've invented this strawman has actually argued cogently for acquittal/innocence based on a rational, logical, objective assessment of the evidence (and lack of evidence). That you have invented an argument from emotion/jingoism would appear to say a lot more about you than about those people you've attacked.

Secondly, there's the little matter of that other bloke who was unjustly investigated, charged, tried and convicted - and who also has now rightfully been acquitted and exonerated. Can you remember his name, Vixen? You do seem awfully fixated on Knox for some reason.....

And thirdly, a lot of pro-acquittal/pro-innocence arguers in this thread (including me) are not even American. Or Italian.

Interesting stuff, huh?
LondonJohn 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
Old 4th July 2019, 05:18 PM   #634
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
That hook was forcefully pulled apart as evidenced by the shape of the hooks. So how did RS manage that without grasping the two sides of the back strap or the cloth the hoods were sewn to and pulling then apart? The PGP ignore that fact that no DNA of RS's was found anywhere else on the bra. Funny how Guede left his in a non-LCN amount.

Watch how the clasp is handled by Stefanoni and the others. They all hold it by the cloth and not the tiny hook, but we're supposed to believe that RS only touched the hook. PGP logic at its finest.
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 05:20 PM   #635
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
That you have invented an argument from emotion/jingoism would appear to say a lot more about you than about those people you've attacked.
Amen to that!
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 06:17 PM   #636
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,865
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I agree. I'd want her in prison for decades if she were guilty. There are Americans in prison around the world for crimes they did commit and that's fine and dandy with me. For Vixen to make the claim otherwise is just more evidence of the ridiculous lengths she will go to in her desperation. It's very sad really.
Yes it is sad. But she is never going to wake up and smell the coffee. She is going to repeat the same false factoids that you me and others as well as the courts debunked over and over again. I refuse to allow myself back down that rabbit hole.

I'm slightly interested in the ECHR and how Italy resolves it. I'm also interested in Amanda's recovery and what she does with her life. Her speech in Italy was great, but I wish she hadn't cried again. That says to me she still has work to do to put it behind her. My hope for Amanda and Raffaele that they can. That event and the surrounding media attention will always have some impact. But that doesn't mean it has to define them.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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
Old 4th July 2019, 06:22 PM   #637
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Did it escape anyone's notice that Vixen, declaring my ten points as "made up", failed to counter any of them with actual contradictory evidence? As TomG would say "Hoots!"
Stacyhs 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
Old 4th July 2019, 06:41 PM   #638
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,372
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No matter how many times you show this clip, tertiary transfer of DNA simply does not happen. Peter Gill himself said secondary transfer had to happen 'within twenty-four hours'.

There is no way Raff's very strong robust DNA on the bra clasp (found under the body BTW) could have transferred from the door to the glove (on 18 Dec 2007, week no. 6) and then to the crook in the clasp.

Stop deluding yourselves.
You invented that claim, highlighted above. Read this abstract of a study, examining the probabilities of secondary and tertiary transfers of DNA. If you have the interest, you can purchase the whole study.
Quote:
We have shown that the amount of DNA deposited on an object affects the probability of transfer. Secondly, the type of substrate material that DNA is deposited onto has an impact on transfer rates.
Nowhere does it say that tertiary transfer does not happen. It says the exact opposite. Indeed modern methods of detection mean that.....
Quote:
We show that with use of the new highly sensitive technologies available in forensic DNA analysis there is an enhanced probability to obtain a DNA-profile which has not been directly deposited on the object but is an outcome of one or more transfer events.
Quote:
We investigated the primary transfer of freshly deposited DNA from touched plastic, wood or metal substrates and secondary and tertiary transfer by a person wearing disposable nitrile-gloves and onto a third object.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26005954

Does this remind you of anything? (Pictures are taken by the Scientific Police in Dec 2007, 46 days after the murder, of a clasp ignored during the first forensic sweep on Nov 2, and found in December at a different location than as photographed 46 days earlier.)


Why do you need to invent factoids?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 4th July 2019 at 06:44 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
Old 4th July 2019, 06:53 PM   #639
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,865
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Did it escape anyone's notice that Vixen, declaring my ten points as "made up", failed to counter any of them with actual contradictory evidence? As TomG would say "Hoots!"
No. You did a good job at addressing every one and she didn't offer anything credible in return. But she'll be repeating her nonsense within days...maybe sooner.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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
Old 4th July 2019, 07:14 PM   #640
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,457
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
You invented that claim, highlighted above. Read this abstract of a study, examining the probabilities of secondary and tertiary transfers of DNA. If you have the interest, you can purchase the whole study.
Nowhere does it say that tertiary transfer does not happen. It says the exact opposite. Indeed modern methods of detection mean that.....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26005954

Does this remind you of anything? (Pictures are taken by the Scientific Police in Dec 2007, 46 days after the murder, of a clasp ignored during the first forensic sweep on Nov 2, and found in December at a different location than as photographed 46 days earlier.)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d51816a9a7.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d64bdf2e8d.jpg
Why do you need to invent factoids?
Um....I do believe I presented exactly this earlier.
Stacyhs 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
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.