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 20th October 2019, 04:31 PM   #3401
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,214
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Not even the bent Marasca-Bruno court cleared the pair; it had to opt for a 'paragraph 2' get out clause so loved by dodgy Italian politicians (Berlusconi and Andreotti, for example) spouting 'insufficient evidence'.

In other words it didn't care if the pair were caught red-handed it still not 100% BEYOND ALL DOUBT they took part. Why, they could have just been passing through by accident.


LMAO. You have no idea what you're talking about. And you clearly also have no idea about a) the ways in which Italian law acquits (and why), and b) the generlised concept in jurisprudence of acquittal in a criminal trial. Again, no suprise there really.
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 20th October 2019, 04:34 PM   #3402
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,214
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It's posts like this that say so much about how you think. It's rather sad.

You see BARD as a "get out clause" to be used by 'bent' judges to benefit 'dodgy' politicians. Apparently, you don't think that proving a case 'beyond a reasonable doubt' due to insufficient/lack of evidence is necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if you'd have been a huge Tomas de Torquemada fan in the day.



Yep. Vixen doesn't have the first idea what she's talking about. Sad really. It would be good to be able to have at least an informed, educated, properly-reasoned debate from a pro-guilt perspective (even though I am extremely confident that no reasonable argument can be made for guilt...). But instead we're stuck with this pile of bat guano.
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 20th October 2019, 04:36 PM   #3403
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,214
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
YOU, yourself said that if the key from inside the door was left in the lock, another housemate had to ring the bell, as the only way to ensure the faulty door was locked was to lock it from the inside. Amanda Knox and the other housemates confirmed this, so it is NOT hearsay, 'based on what Guede said'. If Guede broke in through the window (haha) how the heck would he even know about the faulty door?


Erm, because he tried to exit using the door and found it locked with no key present?

The whole point is that whoever locked the door from the inside would have taken the key out of the door (and probably kept it with them). Otherwise nobody, even if they had a key, would have been able to unlock the door from outside and enter the house, if a key was already in the lock from the inside.

Sheesh.
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 20th October 2019, 04:39 PM   #3404
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,214
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
My word. Your deliberate omission of key facts informs us you know perfectly well the pair did it.


L. M. A. O.

What is with this bizarre pro-guilt-commentator (seeming) obsession with the idea that pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators actually "know they did it", but somehow choose to argue and debate otherwise?

Is it that pro-guilt commentators need to believe this nonsense, in order to shore up their own misguided beliefs? I truly cannot understand the psychology here. Just as I'd find it ludicrous to accuse pro-guilt commentators of "knowing the pair are innocent".......
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 20th October 2019, 04:40 PM   #3405
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,214
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are so ignorant of forensic science you believe a 17-allele high RFU sample of DNA is an accident of random contamination which managed to somehow replicate it self out of nowhere, as Raff had never been in the room prior to the murder.

Knox' blood is mixed in with Mez' blood (hello? a murder victim's blood) both diluted at the same time and in exactly the same straight line in the sink and bidet.

So truly hignorant.


Or perhaps you are just a troll.


Oh the irony!

Or perhaps you are just a troll......
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 20th October 2019, 04:42 PM   #3406
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,214
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Unfortunately for you, Massei and Nencini, partly, were a merits trial in which facts were established from the evidence presented from all parties. It is commonly accepted that trial by a highly qualified judge (=fifteen years' practice as a successful barrister) plus twelve of your peers (in Italy there is a whole panel of judges, tribunal style as well as the jury) is the fairest possible way to weigh up guilt or innocence with the bar for 'guilty' for serious crime so high, it is difficult to ever get a conviction (for example only about 2% of rape trials succeed and in the UK two out of three persons standing trial can expect the jury to find them 'not guilty' and walk, to the despair of the police). Italy was hugely sympathetic to these two youngsters yet it could find no other verdict but GUILTY AS CHARGED.

The Supreme Court is not a merits court it is simply a 'paper work' court.

The Hellmann and Marasca ones were obviously as bent as an eleventy pence piece.

ETA: It was proven Raff gave a false alibi. He claimed to be surfing the net all evening. A blatant lie.


I suggest you actually educate yourself properly as to the role and remit of the Supreme Court in Italy, rather than your wholly invented and incorrect interpretation. The British Library will almost certainly have book which will be able to inform you accurately, if you care to learn.
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 20th October 2019, 04:43 PM   #3407
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,214
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hello? The legal standard in a criminal court is 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

In a civil court you only needed to show a 51-49% probability weighting to win your case.

In a murder trial, the level or BARD will be something like 99.9% to 0.01% residual doubt, on the assumption no-one but the killer/s was/were present at the crime so we'll never know the 100% truth.

You don't really believe the pair were found guilty because Guede claimed the lock on the door was faulty. (Which it was, actually.) Seriously?


*sigh*

Oh dear.
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 20th October 2019, 04:44 PM   #3408
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,214
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Only someone seriously deluded or a troll would think you can be convicted of murder by a judge and jury in civilised Europe for once having thrown a riotous party.

Grow up, please.


What on Earth are you talking about? Nobody came close to suggesting or even implying such a thing. Do you have reading comprehension issues?

"Grow up please" HAHAHAHAHAHA.
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 20th October 2019, 04:46 PM   #3409
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,214
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In your heart you know it. We can tell because of your systematic denial or revision of established facts.


Does it actually make you feel somehow better to believe this bat crap about pro-innocence commentators "knowing in their hearts" that Knox and Sollecito actually participated in the Kercher murder, Vixen? What's your reasoning behind it? I'm very interested to find out.
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 20th October 2019, 04:47 PM   #3410
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,214
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
OUTED. You are not 'an expert biological chemist' as you have tried to present yourself.

You are actually HIGNORANT.


Erm.... WHAT????

(And I suggest you take care. Oh no, wait..... actually I don't care at all in that respect)
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 20th October 2019, 04:50 PM   #3411
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,214
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Making things up again?
Prof Peter Gill's CV



Yet more evidence of Vixen's enduring commitment to accuracy, truth and objectivity in research.

Otherwise known as "make up any old crap you like if it supports your thesis"....
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 20th October 2019, 05:19 PM   #3412
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 893
Vixen, sweetheart, while we acknowledge you are a world-class scientist and scholar, doesn't it make you scratch your head a bit that every professional scientist that has looked at the forensic evidence has unequivocally stated it was flawed and that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent? Like, we're talking something around ~10-20 world class forensic scientists and geneticists that have spoken out against the evidence and even published scientific literature.

Like, shouldn't you have at least one scientist on your side...? Just one?
NotEvenWrong 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 20th October 2019, 06:19 PM   #3413
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
What on Earth are you talking about? Nobody came close to suggesting or even implying such a thing. Do you have reading comprehension issues?

"Grow up please" HAHAHAHAHAHA.
That's a trick question, right?
TruthCalls 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 20th October 2019, 06:23 PM   #3414
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,510
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
Vixen, sweetheart, while we acknowledge you are a world-class scientist and scholar, doesn't it make you scratch your head a bit that every professional scientist that has looked at the forensic evidence has unequivocally stated it was flawed and that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent? Like, we're talking something around ~10-20 world class forensic scientists and geneticists that have spoken out against the evidence and even published scientific literature.

Like, shouldn't you have at least one scientist on your side...? Just one?
Now, now...she has 'Dr.' Stefanoni on her side. You know, the 'Dr.' who didn't even bother to mention the several negative TMB results on extremely important evidence she kept referring to in her testimony. The 'Dr.' who claimed to find MK's DNA in a scratch on the knife neither she nor anyone else could ever find again. The 'Dr.' who claimed she only needed to change gloves between handling pieces of evidence if it was 'wet'. Who can argue with that?

Besides, all those other experts are 'bent' and/or trying to 'cash in' by 'prostituting' their names.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 20th October 2019 at 06:25 PM.
Stacyhs is online now   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 20th October 2019, 08:03 PM   #3415
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,214
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Now, now...she has 'Dr.' Stefanoni on her side. You know, the 'Dr.' who didn't even bother to mention the several negative TMB results on extremely important evidence she kept referring to in her testimony. The 'Dr.' who claimed to find MK's DNA in a scratch on the knife neither she nor anyone else could ever find again. The 'Dr.' who claimed she only needed to change gloves between handling pieces of evidence if it was 'wet'. Who can argue with that?

Besides, all those other experts are 'bent' and/or trying to 'cash in' by 'prostituting' their names.



The "Dr" Stefanoni who consciously decided to store a critical piece of physical evidence - the bra clasp - in a liquid solution within a plastic tast tube, thus ensuring that it rusted and deteriorated to the extent that it could never again be examined or tested.

The "Dr" Stefanoni who consciously decided to "protect" a potentially critical piece of evidence - a mop found at the girls' cottage - by wrapping it up in giftwrapping paper that itself was the property of one of the cottage's residents and which even an idiot child could determine might itself have been a source of contamination.

The "Dr" Stefanoni who either consciously or unconsciously (ie through gross negligence) left the bloody towels found in Kercher's room in a wet pile, thus ensuring that they developed various moulds and fungi and became entirely useless for attempting testing (which could well have been important evidence).


No wonder Mignini - who obviously didn't fancy her at all, nosireee - described "Dr" Stefanoni as "world class"........
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 20th October 2019, 11:33 PM   #3416
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,202
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Making things up again?
Prof Peter Gill's CV
OK, I stand corrected.
__________________
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 21st October 2019, 12:33 AM   #3417
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 893
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
OK, I stand corrected.
What an interesting chain of posts.

Vixen, where did you originally get Peter Gill's age from? Did you entirely fabricate his age in an attempt to discredit him and his scientific expertise, hoping that no one would check?

Also, here you acknowledge your mistake. Generally, you do not, and keep repeating the same incorrect claims over and over again. In general, how do you determine what is a mistake or misunderstanding on your part, and what is a Masonic conspiracy perpetrated at the highest levels of Government and bankrolled by the Amanda Knox PR supertanker to free the girl from Seattle and her boyfriend?

Like, couldn't someone in the PR campaign have paid a Freemason hacker to infiltrate Peter Gill's web page and change the birth date on his resume?

Surprisingly, this is a serious question. I'm wondering how your brain works. How do you decide "oops guess I didn't understand this and made a mistake" vs. "Donald Trump paid off all the scientists in the the forensic science community to support Amanda Knox".
NotEvenWrong 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 21st October 2019, 10:42 AM   #3418
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,510
Vixen may have admitted she was wrong about Gill's age*, but she has yet to admit that her claim that I "completely revised what the merits court found as a fact regarding the blood in the bathroom" was entirely false.

Vixen has yet to disprove, with evidence, one thing that NotEvenWrong said. Not only has she failed to disprove it, she has not even attempted to do so.

*a minor admission regarding Gill's age which is relevant to exactly nothing in the case, but a rare event, nonetheless.
Stacyhs is online now   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 21st October 2019, 11:07 AM   #3419
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,380
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Vixen may have admitted she was wrong about Gill's age*, but she has yet to admit that her claim that I "completely revised what the merits court found as a fact regarding the blood in the bathroom" was entirely false.
Vixen, nor any of the guilter-nutters have addressed ANY of the issues Peter Gill raised in his peer reviewed article, an article which completely trashes the prosecution's original DNA "expert".

See: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.02.015
__________________
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 21st October 2019, 11:22 AM   #3420
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,510
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Vixen, nor any of the guilter-nutters have addressed ANY of the issues Peter Gill raised in his peer reviewed article, an article which completely trashes the prosecution's original DNA "expert".

See: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.02.015
That's because he's bent and "prostituted himself out as a gun for hire" as Vixen has contended. Exactly why a man of his stature in the forensic world would do so is not exactly clear but I'm sure Vixen would be happy to clarify that for us. Or not.
Stacyhs is online now   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 21st October 2019, 01:23 PM   #3421
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,202
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Vixen may have admitted she was wrong about Gill's age*, but she has yet to admit that her claim that I "completely revised what the merits court found as a fact regarding the blood in the bathroom" was entirely false.

Vixen has yet to disprove, with evidence, one thing that NotEvenWrong said. Not only has she failed to disprove it, she has not even attempted to do so.

*a minor admission regarding Gill's age which is relevant to exactly nothing in the case, but a rare event, nonetheless.
Don't need to. Any fule 'no DNA does NOT crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear.

As one of the judges put it, 'there is more chance of a meteorite striking this court'.
__________________
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 21st October 2019, 01:25 PM   #3422
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,202
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Vixen, nor any of the guilter-nutters have addressed ANY of the issues Peter Gill raised in his peer reviewed article, an article which completely trashes the prosecution's original DNA "expert".

See: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.02.015
Don't need to, as Gill was never a witness at the trial. Not at the trial? Your testimony doesn't count.
__________________
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 21st October 2019, 01:47 PM   #3423
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't need to. Any fule 'no DNA does NOT crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear.

As one of the judges put it, 'there is more chance of a meteorite striking this court'.
Yeah, and you know how those judges are routinely involved with research into DNA transfer. I can't imagine anyone with more credentials to know such things than a judge. Clearly they'd know more about DNA transfer potential than some country bumpkins like Peter Gil or Greg Hampikian!
TruthCalls 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 21st October 2019, 01:51 PM   #3424
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't need to, as Gill was never a witness at the trial. Not at the trial? Your testimony doesn't count.
That's interesting that you say that, considering you're constantly telling us what Luciano Garofano thought of things and, unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe he testified in court either.
TruthCalls 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 21st October 2019, 01:53 PM   #3425
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,380
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't need to, as Gill was never a witness at the trial. Not at the trial? Your testimony doesn't count.
............................................. and:

The result of the Italian trial process was that they were exonerated! They actually didn't need Peter Gill at the trial, Conti/Vecchiotti (also peer reviewed scientists) also trashed Stefanoni's work - under oath.

What is your next inane comment going to be?
__________________
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 21st October 2019, 01:59 PM   #3426
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,380
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Yeah, and you know how those judges are routinely involved with research into DNA transfer. I can't imagine anyone with more credentials to know such things than a judge. Clearly they'd know more about DNA transfer potential than some country bumpkins like Peter Gil or Greg Hampikian!
The following is the Marasca-Bruno discussion on the role of a judge in Italy with regard to expert opinion.
Originally Posted by Marasca-Buno in Sept 2015
This question, specific as it is, forms part of the lively theoretical debate on the
relationship between scientific evidence and criminal trials
, in search of a
problematic balance between a theory – not insensitive to certain suggestions of
interpretive stances from beyond our borders – that tends to put an increasing
amount of weight on the contributions of science, even if not validated by the
scientific community; and a theory that insists on the primacy of law and postulates
that, in deference to the rules of criminal procedure itself, only those scientific
experiments validated according to commonly accepted methodological canons may
be allowed to enter.

This cultural debate, while respecting the principle of freely-held opinion of the
judge, also proposes to critically reexamine the now-obsolete and dubiously credible
notion of the judge as “peritus peritorum” [expert of experts]
. Indeed, this old
maxim expresses a cultural model that is no longer current, and is in fact decidedly
anachronistic, at least to the extent that it expects to assign to the judge a real
ability to master the flow of scientific knowledge that the parties pour into the
proceeding; a more realistic formulation, by contrast, sees the judge as wholly
oblivious to those contributions, which are the fruit of a scientific training that he or
she does not, need not, and cannot possess. This is all the more true with regard to
genetic science, whose complex methods require a specific training in forensic
genetics, chemistry, and molecular biology, drawing upon a knowledge base that is
light-years away from the purely humanistic and juridical education of a magistrate.

The consequence of acknowledging, as is inevitable, this state of legitimate
ignorance on the part of the judge, and therefore their inability to “autonomously”
master scientific evidence, cannot, however, be an uncritical placing of trust, which
would be tantamount – perhaps on account of a misunderstood notion of freely-held
opinion and of an equally misunderstood concept of “expert of experts” – to the
substantial abdication of their own role by means of a fideistic acceptance of
contributions by experts to whom the resolution of the case – and thus the
responsibility of deciding it – would be delegated.
__________________
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 21st October 2019, 02:33 PM   #3427
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,510
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't need to. Any fule 'no DNA does NOT crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear.

As one of the judges put it, 'there is more chance of a meteorite striking this court'.
Any fule 'no that no one here or elsewhere has claimed that DNA DOES "crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear". Stop with the false claims. They do not help your argument.

What anyone who knows anything at all about DNA DOES know is that DNA can be transferred by nitrile/latex gloves which is why protocol calls for them to be changed between the handling of each evidence sample. Well, except for Stefanoni who said that they only need to be changed if the sample is 'wet'. Odd how international protocols don't agree with her.

Quote:
The nitrile-gloves used by investigators during exhibit examination can act as a vector for DNA transfer from one item to another.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._investigation

And you still haven't admitted that I did NOT 'revise' what the merit court found regarding the DNA/blood mixture. But, that's not surprising.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 21st October 2019 at 02:35 PM.
Stacyhs is online now   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 21st October 2019, 02:48 PM   #3428
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,510
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Vixen, nor any of the guilter-nutters have addressed ANY of the issues Peter Gill raised in his peer reviewed article, an article which completely trashes the prosecution's original DNA "expert".

See: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.02.015
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't need to, as Gill was never a witness at the trial. Not at the trial? Your testimony doesn't count.
What a silly excuse for not addressing the issues raised by Gill. As already stated, if that is your justification, then stop quoting Garofano in support of your "Knox was bleeding profusely" claim.
Stacyhs is online now   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 21st October 2019, 03:04 PM   #3429
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,380
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
What a silly excuse for not addressing the issues raised by Gill. As already stated, if that is your justification, then stop quoting Garofano in support of your "Knox was bleeding profusely" claim.
....... and Vixen can stop quoting Peter Quennell or Harry Rag. Or any of those pseudonymous guilter-nutters who tried to read body-language!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 21st October 2019 at 03:05 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 21st October 2019, 03:10 PM   #3430
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,510
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't need to. Any fule 'no DNA does NOT crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear.

As one of the judges put it, 'there is more chance of a meteorite striking this court'.
No judge said that. It was a quote from Prof. Novelli regarding dust and contamination.

Quote:
The hook contaminated by dust? It’s more likely for a meteorite to fall and bring this court down to the ground.
Of course, contamination via other means, such as dirty gloves, is quite possible as demonstrated by studies. You know, like the dirty ones Stefanoni is shown wearing in the police video of the bra clasp collection.
Stacyhs is online now   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 21st October 2019, 03:11 PM   #3431
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,510
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
....... and Vixen can stop quoting Peter Quennell or Harry Rag. Or any of those pseudonymous guilter-nutters who tried to read body-language!
Or anyone who did not testify in court! Apparently, only testifying in court gives someone expertise on a subject.
Stacyhs is online now   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 21st October 2019, 03:43 PM   #3432
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't need to. Any fule 'no DNA does NOT crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear.

As one of the judges put it, 'there is more chance of a meteorite striking this court'.
Do you have a quote from the transcripts for that? Last time I looked, that "meteorite" quote was attributed to Hellmann appeal persecution expert Prof. Novelli... (not a judge)
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos 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 21st October 2019, 04:31 PM   #3433
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
That's interesting that you say that, considering you're constantly telling us what Luciano Garofano thought of things and, unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe he testified in court either.
Nor did David Balding? Another guilter hero.
AnimalFriendly 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 21st October 2019, 04:36 PM   #3434
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
....... and Vixen can stop quoting Peter Quennell or Harry Rag. Or any of those pseudonymous guilter-nutters who tried to read body-language!
Speaking of, er, "Harry", aka, The Machine, he just had a hilarious whine over at TJMK re: the March 2015 decision and how it should be "appealed"....no worries, Quennell gently told him how that just ain't happening.
AnimalFriendly 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 21st October 2019, 05:35 PM   #3435
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,510
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
Speaking of, er, "Harry", aka, The Machine, he just had a hilarious whine over at TJMK re: the March 2015 decision and how it should be "appealed"....no worries, Quennell gently told him how that just ain't happening.
The gang over on TJMK never ceases to make me laugh. Their continuing posting of 'articles' proving AK's and RS's guilt is hilarious but, at the same time, rather sad. I've never seen a bunch of people so intent on reinforcing their beliefs in an echo chamber. Don't they realize nobody reads those things anymore and that they are completely irrelevant? Apparently not. What a pathetic bunch they are.
Stacyhs is online now   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 21st October 2019, 06:15 PM   #3436
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,510
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Do you have a quote from the transcripts for that? Last time I looked, that "meteorite" quote was attributed to Hellmann appeal persecution expert Prof. Novelli... (not a judge)
From what I've found it was from an interview in Il Messagero but the link to it is broken.

Quote:
Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011
Postby charlie_wilkes » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:47 pm

"The hook contaminated by dust? More likely a meteorite fall, and tear down this court." - Dr. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant for the Prosecution

http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php ... RONACANERA
Stacyhs is online now   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 22nd October 2019, 12:10 AM   #3437
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 893
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't need to, as Gill was never a witness at the trial. Not at the trial? Your testimony doesn't count.
Dear Vixen,
The courts found them innocent.

Regards,
NotEvenWrong

PS -- WTF
NotEvenWrong 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 22nd October 2019, 04:38 AM   #3438
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't need to. Any fule 'no DNA does NOT crawl under a door and onto the murder victim's underwear.

As one of the judges put it, 'there is more chance of a meteorite striking this court'.
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Do you have a quote from the transcripts for that? Last time I looked, that "meteorite" quote was attributed to Hellmann appeal persecution expert Prof. Novelli... (not a judge)
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
From what I've found it was from an interview in Il Messagero but the link to it is broken.
Quote:
Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011
Postby charlie_wilkes » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:47 pm

"The hook contaminated by dust? More likely a meteorite fall, and tear down this court." - Dr. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant for the Prosecution

http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php ... RONACANERA
Seems to be this article about the hearing on July 30th, 2011.
Quote:
«Il contaminante va dimostrato, dove nasce e dove è. Il gancetto contaminato dalla polvere? Più probabile che cada un meteorite e butti giù questo tribunale» ha sostenuto Giuseppe Novelli, ordinario di genetica umana e consulente dei pm.
google:
Quote:
«The contaminant must be demonstrated, where it is born and where it is. The hook contaminated with dust? More likely to fall a meteorite and throw this court down, "said Giuseppe Novelli, professor of human genetics and consultant to the prosecutors.
Prof Novelli didn't testify that day...
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos 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 22nd October 2019, 08:46 AM   #3439
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
Speaking of, er, "Harry", aka, The Machine, he just had a hilarious whine over at TJMK re: the March 2015 decision and how it should be "appealed"....no worries, Quennell gently told him how that just ain't happening.
I'm starting to feel like Charlie Brown, trying to kick the football and always falling for Lucy's 'pulling the ball away' trick. I never learn.

Like looking at a bad wreck, someone mentions TJMK and I can't resist visting the cesspool AGAIN... and what's the first thing I see? - a picture of Mignini and Stefanoni talking, with the caption of "Dr Stefanoni with Dr Mignini, two world-class professionals".

I know better than to go there, but I can't resist these tales of lunacy... I feel like I need to see them myself, and I always wind up feeling dirty and filled with regret.
TruthCalls 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 22nd October 2019, 09:22 AM   #3440
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,510
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Seems to be this article about the hearing on July 30th, 2011.

google:

Prof Novelli didn't testify that day...
Quote:
The contaminant must be demonstrated, where it is born and where it is.
What a ridiculous statement. The source of contamination cannot always be discovered but that does not mean contamination did not occur. In the Sollecito clasp incident, it's rather obvious to anyone with more than half a brain that the clasp, found 6 weeks after the murder across the room from its original location and among other objects is not going to be in the same forensic state as it was immediately after the murder. It is visibly dirtier and 'rattier' when collected than it was when first found.


Then there is the video of the collection showing it being held with dirty, unchanged gloves. What else did that glove touch? The door handle that we know Sollecito touched...but was not tested by the crack scientific police?

There is also the unidentified DNA of several others on the same tiny clasp. How did those get there? Do we know 'where it was born' or the means of how that DNA got there? No. Yet there it is.
Stacyhs is online now   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 02:08 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.