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 Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:20 PM   #161
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,520
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Why does Vixen do this? Does she think we cannot click on the links she herself provides? Why does she post pics of windows at the cottage saying, "Here's a pic with no bars on the window", when the pic itself shows that there are?

Why does Vixen say that Vecchiotti said, "Vecchiotti confirmed under oath that there was no contamination risk in Stefanoni's lab," when Vecchiotti said no such thing? Why does Vixen say that Dr. Gill said that secondary transfer not happen after 24 hours when he said no such thing? Why does Vixen claim that Prof Novelli confirmed Stefanoni's forensic work, when what Novelli's told the court was that Stefanoni had not followed international protocols on multiple amplifications?

These are not even subtle mistruths. Imagine someone wandering onto this thread with no knowledge of this case whatsoever - why does Vixen think that posting demonstrable lies will convince them of Vixen's own views?

As Welshman repeats - if the case against RS and AK had been such a slam dunk, why resort to lies? Why?

Here's the Peter Gill quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Try reading Peter Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" where he contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77)
- From a review by N Ahmed

As for Vecchiotti, as I have pointed to her testimony under oath when she asked several times whether Stef's labs were contaminated was forced to concur they were not.

Citation please from the court documents that the laboratory was contaminated.

No court found any contamination in the lab.

As for Novelli on Stefanoni at the Nencini Appeal (from a review of the Netflix film):

He upholds that the Forensic Police, aside from some human error, acted correctly and dismissed defence claims that Stefanoni had withheld raw data, and as claimed by ‘the experts’, citing documentary proof the information had been deposited. Nencini reinstated the convictions, 31 January 2014, and dismissed the claim of contamination. The sample on the knife ‘the experts’ had claimed was ‘starch’ and ‘too low LCN’ was successfully tested and found to be that of Amanda Knox. None of this is mentioned by Vecchiotti & Conti in the film and nor do the film makers point it out, leaving their audience to believe ‘the experts’ claim of ‘contamination is proven’.

A key finding was that Professors Novelli and Torricelli had already been the target of the criticisms raised specifically by Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, technical consultant for the Sollecito defense, at the first instance trial court, and thus was a matter settled (res judicata). This is important to note, for Marasca later describes Tagliabracci in glowing terms as ‘world renowned’ when he reinstates the Hellmann findings in this matter, at the next level. Nencini observes, ‘Finally, it is observed that Prof. Tagliabracci’s criticism is founded on an unproven and unprovable suspicion, namely that the biologist doing the work being already in possession of reference samples supposedly used the “suspect-centric” method.’

Nencini also found that the second instance [Hellman] court undervalued the fact that the tests carried out took place during the preliminary investigation [of which the Defence was notified and had the right to attend], that at the time of those tests, there were no objections concerning the sampling and laboratory activity, nor was a pre‐trial hearing requested regarding the testing, all of which proves agreement with the [laboratory] procedures.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11

Last edited by Vixen; 2nd August 2017 at 12:27 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:25 PM   #162
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,410
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Here's the Peter Gill quote:

- From a review by N Ahmed

As for Vecchiotti, as I have pointed to her testimony under oath when she asked several times whether Stef's labs were contaminated was forced to concur they were not.

Citation please from the court documents that the laboratory was contaminated.

No court found any contamination in the lab.
LOL! You're citing an astrologer, claiming that as a peer review of Peter Gill's work. LOL!

For the umpteenth time - it is not up to a court to find contamination, or up to the defence to provide a route for contamination. As presented here countless times, a lab which does LCN work must be certified for it, which Stefanoni's lab was not.

When I asked for a forensic-DNA expert who would back Stefanoni's work, I wasn't asking for an astrologer's point of view.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:30 PM   #163
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,520
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
This is an unbelievably foolish statement. Of course there was and is in every lab doing PCR a contamination risk. That is exactly why precautions have be taken and adhered to, to prevent contamination. That you can post this demonstrates you have no understanding of the issues.

This is particularly foolish in that the records available demonstrate a contamination event in that we have negative controls with detectable human DNA.

So not only can DNA contamination occur we know it did occur.
Nice try at wool-pulling.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:31 PM   #164
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,520
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Do you even read the links you put up?

Can we record this as another Vixen false fact?

What your link says, "Two prints matching Raffaele Sollecito (Fr. 68 and Fr. 72) are on the outside of the door." (my emphasis)
#68 is on the outside of the door. the two #72 prints are on the inner door.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:31 PM   #165
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,307
Actually i should thank Vixen for bringing this up. Fr B is a finger print of Guede. For some reason this is not numbered like other prints. Despite there being this fingerprint at the crime scene and despite Guede's fingerprints being on record it was not an attempt to identify this fingerprint that identified Guede which just goes to show that the police made little or no attempt to identify the unknown fingerprints (although a bloody handprint was just too obvious a clue to ignore).
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:33 PM   #166
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,520
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I don't think you've even read her memoir from the false statements you made about what's in it. She never said prison doctors forced her to list her partners. This is what she testified:



She does not say, or even imply, that the doctors "forced" her to make a list. Why do you feel the need to just make things up?

The statement that he couldn't remember if they'd had sex that night was taken during his Nov 6 interrogation when he confused Halloween night with Nov. 1. Since then, Raffaele does remember having sex with her that night.



Why do you insist on twisting things to fit your own view?. This is what she actually wrote:







She is writing about the letters she received. She does not see them as "confirmation" that she's "hot". Her last two lines reveal her disdain for the claims of her beauty.



She never claimed she was "forced" as I proved with her testimony above.



Apparently you care if we go by the amount of times you refer to her sex life. Why is that?

She told the latest bunch of lawyers (LA?) she was forced to list her sex partners. Do keep up with the news. (Albeit, fake.)

Ask Bill. He is the one who is obsessed with 'slut shaming' (whatever that is).
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:35 PM   #167
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,410
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
#68 is on the outside of the door. the two #72 prints are on the inner door.
Your link was to a 100-page report which did not (readily at least) confirm your claim. Where you got the pics you posted is still unclear. Did you photoshop them yourself?

At least this is slightly better than posting pics which show the actual opposite of what you claimed they showed.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:36 PM   #168
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,410
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She told the latest bunch of lawyers (LA?) she was forced to list her sex partners. Do keep up with the news. (Albeit, fake.)

Ask Bill. He is the one who is obsessed with 'slut shaming' (whatever that is).
I probably am. I've seen that kind of bullying behaviour used as a substitute for actual evidence. It's also been used by bullies "just because", for the fun of it.

You seem to use it as a way to avoid presenting evidence which you claim is true - like one forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's work.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 2nd August 2017 at 12:38 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:37 PM   #169
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,307
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
#68 is on the outside of the door. the two #72 prints are on the inner door.
So you disagree with the forensic scientist who was there at the time and testified that Sollecito's fingerprints were on the outside. Do you really know better than the people who were present and did the testing?

"There are two unattributable prints on the desk (Fr. 63) and two on the door (Fr.72)
Two prints matching Raffaele Sollecito (Fr. 68 and Fr. 72) are on the outside of the door."

They are colour coded to make it easy!
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:38 PM   #170
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,520
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
In all fairness to Vixen (did I really say that?...) if you look at the diagram, for some reason Fr. 72 is used both for two "unattributable" prints on the inside of the door as well as one of two prints attributed to Raffaele on the outside (the other being Fr. 68). Of course, the diagram is color coded and nowhere on the diagram does it say "Fr. 72 is Raffaele", so clearly Vixen wasn't paying close attention to details, but still there is something screwed up with the diagram.
Do read Agatino Giunta's testimony, where he states under oath:

Quote:

AG:
17 fragments attributed to Kercher Meredith; 5 fragments attributed to Sollecito Raffaele; 1 fragment attributed to Knox Amanda; 15 fragments attributed to Mezzetti Laura; 5 fragments Romanelli Filomena; 4 fragments Silenzi Giacomo.'
The five Sollecito fragments being as in the police photos:

'Fr 68, Fr 72 [ x 2] - MK's door to her room, Fr 86 Kitchen/Living room (fridge) and Fr 12 in Laura's room. ' See earlier link.


Look at the photos for yourself.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11

Last edited by Vixen; 2nd August 2017 at 12:39 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:40 PM   #171
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,520
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This is TMofMK; they have lots of things wrong.

I find it impossible to believe that Vixen would think that Sollecito's fingerprints were on the inside of the door when that would have placed him inside that bedroom. That would have been strong evidence against him yet such fingerprints are never mentioned in any of the trials. We know that. She knows that.
Have a look at Agatino Giunta's court testimony and the court police photos, for yourself.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:40 PM   #172
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
We know Raff's fingerprint is on the inside of the door to Mez' room, when he claimed he couldn't open her door at all.

Go figure.
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
In all fairness to Vixen (did I really say that?...) if you look at the diagram, for some reason Fr. 72 is used both for two "unattributable" prints on the inside of the door as well as one of two prints attributed to Raffaele on the outside (the other being Fr. 68). Of course, the diagram is color coded and nowhere on the diagram does it say "Fr. 72 is Raffaele", so clearly Vixen wasn't paying close attention to details, but still there is something screwed up with the diagram.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This is TMofMK; they have lots of things wrong.

I find it impossible to believe that Vixen would think that Sollecito's fingerprints were on the inside of the door when that would have placed him inside that bedroom. That would have been strong evidence against him yet such fingerprints are never mentioned in any of the trials. We know that. She knows that.
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I'm not sure who/what the original source for the diagrams are but the amandaknoxcase website has the same diagram, so can't blame the fake wiki for this one.
What does it say at the top of the fingerprint map?
"DIREZIONE CENTRALE ANTICRIMINE SERVIZIO POLIZIA SCIENTIFICA UACV"
so it should be clear "who/what the original source for the diagrams are".

Well, it looks like whoever made that "fingerprint map" mislabeled the prints on the inside of Meredith Kercher's bedroom door. This is from the final fingerprint report made by the Direzione centrale anticrimine della polizia di Stato (page 6):
Quote:
- Nr.1 (uno), contraddistinto con il nr. 72 sul montante altezza serratura della porta della camera da letto;
- Nr.1 (uno), contraddistinto con il nr. 73 sul telaio lato interno sx della porta della camera da letto;
- Nr.1 (uno), contraddistino con il nr. 83 all'interno della maniglia interna della porta di ingresso della camera;
Long story short: prints Fr.73 and Fr.83 are mislabled in the map as Fr.72
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:42 PM   #173
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,629
Wow Italians couldn't secure a conviction with fingerprints of the perp on the inner door covered in blood! Incredible prosecution team!
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:42 PM   #174
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,043
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Here's the Peter Gill quote:

- From a review by N Ahmed

As for Vecchiotti, as I have pointed to her testimony under oath when she asked several times whether Stef's labs were contaminated was forced to concur they were not.

Citation please from the court documents that the laboratory was contaminated.

No court found any contamination in the lab.

As for Novelli on Stefanoni at the Nencini Appeal (from a review of the Netflix film):

He upholds that the Forensic Police, aside from some human error, acted correctly and dismissed defence claims that Stefanoni had withheld raw data, and as claimed by ‘the experts’, citing documentary proof the information had been deposited. Nencini reinstated the convictions, 31 January 2014, and dismissed the claim of contamination. The sample on the knife ‘the experts’ had claimed was ‘starch’ and ‘too low LCN’ was successfully tested and found to be that of Amanda Knox. None of this is mentioned by Vecchiotti & Conti in the film and nor do the film makers point it out, leaving their audience to believe ‘the experts’ claim of ‘contamination is proven’.

A key finding was that Professors Novelli and Torricelli had already been the target of the criticisms raised specifically by Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, technical consultant for the Sollecito defense, at the first instance trial court, and thus was a matter settled (res judicata). This is important to note, for Marasca later describes Tagliabracci in glowing terms as ‘world renowned’ when he reinstates the Hellmann findings in this matter, at the next level. Nencini observes, ‘Finally, it is observed that Prof. Tagliabracci’s criticism is founded on an unproven and unprovable suspicion, namely that the biologist doing the work being already in possession of reference samples supposedly used the “suspect-centric” method.’

Nencini also found that the second instance [Hellman] court undervalued the fact that the tests carried out took place during the preliminary investigation [of which the Defence was notified and had the right to attend], that at the time of those tests, there were no objections concerning the sampling and laboratory activity, nor was a pre‐trial hearing requested regarding the testing, all of which proves agreement with the [laboratory] procedures.
That is not a quote from Gill. It is a quote of Ergon/N. Ahmad. Provide GILL saying that. And, please, do just continue to ignore where GILL has been quoted saying otherwise.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:42 PM   #175
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 500
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Why does Vixen do this? Does she think we cannot click on the links she herself provides? Why does she post pics of windows at the cottage saying, "Here's a pic with no bars on the window", when the pic itself shows that there are?

Why does Vixen say that Vecchiotti said, "Vecchiotti confirmed under oath that there was no contamination risk in Stefanoni's lab," when Vecchiotti said no such thing? Why does Vixen say that Dr. Gill said that secondary transfer not happen after 24 hours when he said no such thing? Why does Vixen claim that Prof Novelli confirmed Stefanoni's forensic work, when what Novelli's told the court was that Stefanoni had not followed international protocols on multiple amplifications?

These are not even subtle mistruths. Imagine someone wandering onto this thread with no knowledge of this case whatsoever - why does Vixen think that posting demonstrable lies will convince them of Vixen's own views?

As Welshman repeats - if the case against RS and AK had been such a slam dunk, why resort to lies? Why?
Vixen constantly bangs about the overwhelming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. The fact PGP posters have to lie so much makes a complete mockery of this claim. If you have to resort to lying to argue the case for guilt, there is no case for guilt. Lying to argue your case indicates two things. Firstly, there is a lack of genuine evidence and the only way PGP can argue their case is to make things up. As can be seen from Vixen’s posts she constantly makes things up. If there is a slam dunk case, you should never have to resort to making things up because there should be plenty of genuine evidence to base your arguments on. Secondly, the facts don’t support your case, there are flaws in the prosecution’s case and the only way you can argue your case is to tell lies which contradict the facts. We see numerous examples of this in Vixen’s posts which I detailed in the post below. The fact Amanda showed grief over Meredith’s death which was supported by witness testimony goes against the case for guilt. Vixen has to lie that Amanda showed no guilt which contradicts witness testimony. The fact there was no human biological material such as cells and tissue on the knife is a major problem with the knife. Vixen has to lie Stefanoni found human tissue on the knife to cover up this problem. The fact experts who did not work for the defence could not rule out a single attacker undermines the notion there had to be multiple attackers. To cover this up Vixen has to lie only defence lawyers argued for a single attacker. If the facts support the case for guilt, you should never have to lie about the facts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562

As I have mentioned previously PGP posters have displayed disgusting hypocrisy when attacking Amanda and Raffaele for telling umpteen lies whilst telling umpteen lies themselves. When PGP bang on about the supposed umpteen lies told by Amanda and Raffaele, I feel there is an element of projection and when PGP talk about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies they are referring to the umpteen lies they tell themselves.

Last edited by Welshman; 2nd August 2017 at 12:47 PM.
Welshman 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:44 PM   #176
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,520
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
You do realise this means an internal door? As opposed to the main door? The finger prints on the 'inner' door were on the corridor not the bedroom surface. They are colour coded and finger prints of an unknown person were found on the bedroom side of the door.

Of course you may ask how much effort did the police put into tracking down whose fingerprints were in the murder room? I mean it was a judicial fact that more than one person was involved in the murder, we have fingerprints of an unknown person in the room, we have DNA of an unknown male on the bra hook. But why bother going to the effort of identifying this person? When one can just fit up someone else.
You know what I meant: inner edge of the door, in the metallic area of the lock.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:46 PM   #177
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,043
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
#68 is on the outside of the door. the two #72 prints are on the inner door.
Sigh. Then please explain to us all here just why the link itself says "Two prints matching Raffaele Sollecito (Fr. 68 and Fr. 72) are on the outside of the door," and that #72 found on the inside of the door is unattributed?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:49 PM   #178
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,520
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Your link was to a 100-page report which did not (readily at least) confirm your claim. Where you got the pics you posted is still unclear. Did you photoshop them yourself?

At least this is slightly better than posting pics which show the actual opposite of what you claimed they showed.
I copied the photos from the police photo file (public domain) and for your ease of reference captioned them for you.

I even gave you fingerprint expert Giunta's direct quotes under testimony confirming these five particular fingerprints are Raff's.

I told you precisely on what page Peter Gill's own assertion that secondary transfer is unlikely to yield a full profile >24 hours (p76 -77).

What thanks do I get?
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:51 PM   #179
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,307
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nice try at wool-pulling.
"It is simple to find the contaminated negative control in Batch 4. Stefanoni’s own quantification results for Real Time run no. 564 show the negative control (NTC, or No Template Control) located at wells B10-12, and well B11 shows a “Ct” value of 34.30. (Quantificazione p. 14)"

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...ificazione.pdf

Look at the results yourself. This is why access ('discovery') to the laboratory records is essential. Steffanoni testified that she had no contamination yet the negative control contained detectable human DNA; this is contamination.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:52 PM   #180
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,520
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Sigh. Then please explain to us all here just why the link itself says "Two prints matching Raffaele Sollecito (Fr. 68 and Fr. 72) are on the outside of the door," and that #72 found on the inside of the door is unattributed?
Read Giunt'as testimony.

There are THREE prints on the door of Raff's. #68 is on the outside of Mez' door. OK so far?

#72 is TWO prints on the metallic part of the inner edge of the door.

Giunta identifies them as Raff's.

Clear now?
Attached Images
File Type: jpeg fingerprints 2.jpeg (39.2 KB, 5 views)
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 12:55 PM   #181
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,410
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
As I have mentioned previously PGP posters have displayed disgusting hypocrisy when attacking Amanda and Raffaele for telling umpteen lies whilst telling umpteen lies themselves. When PGP bang on about the supposed umpteen lies told by Amanda and Raffaele, I feel there is an element of projection and when PGP talk about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies they are referring to the umpteen lies they tell themselves.
A shadowy guilter pseudo-named Harry Rag/The Machine at one time listed these supposed-lies, as well as an anonymous blogger whose blog is now off-line.

Here's a re-post of what (unless someone can add to it) the alleged lies either Knox or Sollectio told....
Quote:
This is a reconstruction from two sources, first Peter Quennell's page, post by The Machine aka. Harry Rag.

Lie one. Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.

Lie two. Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.

Lie three. Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies, but huge, whopping lies.

Lie four. Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.

Lie five. He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

Lie six. Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

Lie seven. Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

Lie eight. Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintains he was home that night, working on his computer, but computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder

Lie nine. Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.

Lie ten. When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment. “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand." Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking. (Note: this is the one uncontested, and only one, bona fide lie Sollecito told. It was remarkable as an awkward lie.)

Now from the blog there are.....

Lie eleven. - Finally, a lie from Amanda, about how Knox gave a sontaneous confession to Mignini in interrogation, a lie about Patrick Lumumba.

Repeat of lie 1. Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events. “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”

Lie twelve. - from Amanda, about the spot of blood she saw in the bathroom - "At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’” After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.

Lie thirteen. “…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.” This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described. (Note: So this is a lie attributed to Raffaele?)

Repeat of lie #2, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder)

Repeat of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007). He said he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.

Variation of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30 pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”

Variation of lie #3. - Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father: “I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.” (Note: this says precisely the OPPOSITE of what the blogger claims it says.)
There you go. See if you agree whether or not these are bona fide lies.

Compare and contrast with the lies told about Raffaele and Amanda.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:04 PM   #182
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,629
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Read Giunt'as testimony.

There are THREE prints on the door of Raff's. #68 is on the outside of Mez' door. OK so far?

#72 is TWO prints on the metallic part of the inner edge of the door.

Giunta identifies them as Raff's.

Clear now?
Yes. The best evidence the prosecution had this whole case is just now making its appearance on part 26 of our silly little thread. Amazing that nobody spotted this before.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:04 PM   #183
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,520
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That is not a quote from Gill. It is a quote of Ergon/N. Ahmad. Provide GILL saying that. And, please, do just continue to ignore where GILL has been quoted saying otherwise.

PAGE 76 - 77
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:07 PM   #184
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,520
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
LOL! You're citing an astrologer, claiming that as a peer review of Peter Gill's work. LOL!

For the umpteenth time - it is not up to a court to find contamination, or up to the defence to provide a route for contamination. As presented here countless times, a lab which does LCN work must be certified for it, which Stefanoni's lab was not.

When I asked for a forensic-DNA expert who would back Stefanoni's work, I wasn't asking for an astrologer's point of view.
Tut, tut, Bill. Someone who is into a holistic lifestyle is just as qualified to spot the glaring contradictions in Peter Gill's book as anybody.

Quit the ad hominem. It is not becoming of you.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:09 PM   #185
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,410
Originally Posted by Stacyhs
That is not a quote from Gill. It is a quote of Ergon/N. Ahmad. Provide GILL saying that. And, please, do just continue to ignore where GILL has been quoted saying otherwise.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
PAGE 76 - 77
How hard can it be to provide a quote? Until you do your point remains an assertion.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:11 PM   #186
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,410
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Tut, tut, Bill. Someone who is into a holistic lifestyle is just as qualified to spot the glaring contradictions in Peter Gill's book as anybody.

Quit the ad hominem. It is not becoming of you.
Since when is calling someone an astrologer an ad hominem?

For the umpteenth time, provide a cite to a forensic-DNA expert which confirms Stefanoni's work.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:12 PM   #187
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,307
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
PAGE 76 - 77
Whether Gill said this or not is irrelevant as evidence has been posted that DNA transfer is detectable beyond 24 hours. Logically there is no reason for a time limit on transfer. If DNA is detectably present it is transferrable (by definition as it has to transfer from the site on to the swab to be detectable).

ETA let us consider transfer as proposed by Vixen
Transfer 1 DNA from Kercher on Knox
Transfer 2 (secondary) DNA of Kercher from Knox's hands on to basin (along with Knox's DNA a primary transfer).
Transfer 3 (tertiary) DNA of Kercher from the basin onto the swab (along with Knox's DNA a secondary transfer).

If we consider the Luminol positive prints that were DNA positive.

Transfer 1 Kercher's DNA onto floor.
Transfer 2 Kerchers DNA from floor onto Knox's feet
Transfer 3 Kercher's DNA from from Knox's feet to floor
Transfer 4 Kercher's DNA from floor (some six weeks after the murder) to swab.

Now if we are to believe Vixen a quaternary transfer of DNA six weeks later is impossible so we can only conclude that the forensic police must have made up the results.

Last edited by Planigale; 2nd August 2017 at 01:22 PM.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:16 PM   #188
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,629
Since Raffaele never had any reason to step foot in Meredith's room in the one or two times he visited the cottage, and since he never admitted to ever doing so, and since his fingerprints were found on the inside of her door after the murder, I have no choice but to become a 100% born again guilter. It is now me and Vixen vs the world.

My only regret is that the prosecution did not make this damning evidence the front centerpiece of their case, and instead went with blood negative DNA negative blurry stains, and tales of floating turds. He got away with it
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:24 PM   #189
LondonJohn
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,859
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
#68 is on the outside of the door. the two #72 prints are on the inner door.

Holy smoke. Sollecito's discovered prints are on the surface of the (interior) door which faces the corridor. Not on the surface which faces into Kercher's room.

End.

Of.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:29 PM   #190
LondonJohn
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,859
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Whether Gill said this or not is irrelevant as evidence has been posted that DNA transfer is detectable beyond 24 hours. Logically there is no reason for a time limit on transfer. If DNA is detectably present it is transferrable (by definition as it has to transfer from the site on to the swab to be detectable).

ETA let us consider transfer as proposed by Vixen
Transfer 1 DNA from Kercher on Knox
Transfer 2 (secondary) DNA of Kercher from Knox's hands on to basin (along with Knox's DNA a primary transfer).
Transfer 3 (tertiary) DNA of Kercher from the basin onto the swab (along with Knox's DNA a secondary transfer).

If we consider the Luminol positive prints that were DNA positive.

Transfer 1 Kercher's DNA onto floor.
Transfer 2 Kerchers DNA from floor onto Knox's feet
Transfer 3 Kercher's DNA from from Knox's feet to floor
Transfer 4 Kercher's DNA from floor (some six weeks after the murder) to swab.

Now if we are to believe Vixen a quaternary transfer of DNA six weeks later is impossible so we can only conclude that the forensic police must have made up the results.

No, no! Naseer Ahmed, in his no-doubt IMPECCABLY OBJECTIVE "analysis" of Gill's work, has decreed otherwise. And he's even provided page numbers of Gill's work!!!

What more evidence could anyone possibly need?

I tell you once again, Planigale:

PAGE 76-77

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:29 PM   #191
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,410
The following is what Dr. Peter Gill says about the reality of DNA-contamination in the Kercher case. And I'm even going to provide the link which you can check!!!!!!! Just to see if I'm making all this up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by Bill Williams; 2nd August 2017 at 01:34 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:32 PM   #192
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,410
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Since Raffaele never had any reason to step foot in Meredith's room in the one or two times he visited the cottage, and since he never admitted to ever doing so, and since his fingerprints were found on the inside of her door after the murder, I have no choice but to become a 100% born again guilter. It is now me and Vixen vs the world.

My only regret is that the prosecution did not make this damning evidence the front centerpiece of their case, and instead went with blood negative DNA negative blurry stains, and tales of floating turds. He got away with it
I'm to blame. Vixen tried to get into the buildings housing Cassation on the Tiber in Rome, but I'd said to her, "O look! Squirrel!" and she got distracted. Before she could recover with this view-changing evidence, Cassation had acquitted and exonerated the pair.

Definitively.

My bad.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:36 PM   #193
LondonJohn
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,859
Oh Bill, will you never learn??

Here's a perfect example of how it actually works. Ready? OK:


Here's the Michael Jackson quote:

Try listening to Michael Jackson's "You are not alone" where he contradicts himself on the premise of the song by saying you are "alone" (0:59 into the song)

- From a review by LondonJohn


0:59, Bill!

0:59
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 01:55 PM   #194
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 669
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
What does it say at the top of the fingerprint map?
"DIREZIONE CENTRALE ANTICRIMINE SERVIZIO POLIZIA SCIENTIFICA UACV"
so it should be clear "who/what the original source for the diagrams are".

Well, it looks like whoever made that "fingerprint map" mislabeled the prints on the inside of Meredith Kercher's bedroom door. This is from the final fingerprint report made by the Direzione centrale anticrimine della polizia di Stato (page 6):


Long story short: prints Fr.73 and Fr.83 are mislabled in the map as Fr.72
Thanks Methos. Since you winked I won't take it as a personal affront. I was to focused on the fake wiki's 'zoom' of Meredith's room to notice the heading on the full document.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 02:16 PM   #195
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 739
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Holy smoke. Sollecito's discovered prints are on the surface of the (interior) door which faces the corridor. Not on the surface which faces into Kercher's room.

End.

Of.
I am honestly completely baffled how Vixen functions on a day-to-day basis. She has never posted anything that is correct. Ever. How is that even possible? Like shouldn't she be right accidentally sometimes....?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 02:26 PM   #196
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Thanks Methos. Since you winked I won't take it as a personal affront. I was to focused on the fake wiki's 'zoom' of Meredith's room to notice the heading on the full document.
Good. It wasn't meant that way. The one who seems to have reading comprehension problems isn't you, but, well, we know who.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 02:27 PM   #197
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,410
Delete
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 2nd August 2017 at 02:46 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 03:23 PM   #198
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 669
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Read Giunt'as testimony.

There are THREE prints on the door of Raff's. #68 is on the outside of Mez' door. OK so far?

#72 is TWO prints on the metallic part of the inner edge of the door.

Giunta identifies them as Raff's.

Clear now?

Well, I'm not sure who put your little collage together but it contains some mistakes. First, so as to ensure we're dealing with the correct information, here's Giunta's court testimony;

***
Giunta: We can repeat it, I'm 17 - we said what reliefs are - 5 fragments at Sollecito Raffaele are the relief 12), we can even say the annular and left little finger, it was found ...

Comodi: I know it, but not as much as I do. Here, where has this fingerprint been found?

Giunta: Inside the bedroom door behind the living room with kitchenette on the ground floor.

Massei:In the bedroom ...

Giunta: The ground floor is the only floor we have also done because ...

Massei:Excuse me, what bedroom?

Comodi: And so, in short, the famous edge of the Mezzetti room, the Mezzetti room door, right?

Giunta: 12) should be that of the Mezzetti. Then the 68), the left palm, the outside face of the victim's bedroom door.

Comodi: Outside?

Giunta: External face, then external face access.

Comodi: Yup.

Giunta: Pad 70) left thumb, victim's bedroom outdoor door side and 1'86, pad 86) left palm at fridge door.

Comodi: Well, these are the ones that have been attributed to your Solicitors by your colleagues?

Giunta: Exactly, 5 fragments etc, etc. 1 fragment was attributed to Knox, and it is the relief 103) the right glass index found on the kitchen sink.

***

To summarize;

(12) Laura's bedroom door
(68) Outside face of Meredith's door
(70) Outside face of Meredith's door
(86) Refrigerator

So, the mistakes in your collage;

12 is from Laura's door, not the refrigerator
86 is from the refrigerator, not Laura's door
68 and 70 are from the outside of Meredith's bedroom door.

Giunta makes no mention of Fr. 72. That's because Fr. 72 was unidentified and so not relevant. The print diagram is entirely correct except they wrote 72 instead of 70 for the second print on the outside of Meredith's door, as proven by Giunta's testimony.

If you think any of this is incorrect then please provide Giunta testimony that contradicts the testimony I quoted above.

Clear now?

ETA: Interestingly, in your collage you correctly point out that Fr. 12 constitutes two of Sollecito print fragments - the ring finger and the little finger - yet you go on to claim there are three prints on the door, Fr. 68 and two prints identified as Fr. 72. If this was true then there would have been six Sollecito fragments, not five. Who the hell is doing your proof thinking? ....I'd fire 'em!

Last edited by TruthCalls; 2nd August 2017 at 03:27 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 03:30 PM   #199
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,043
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
PAGE 76 - 77
Ergon <snip> does not provide the surrounding context of what he claims Gill wrote. In fact, unless he has a copy of the book itself, all he can read from it is from the "Look Inside" search on Amazon. And this is the only part that Ergon paraphrases:

Quote:
Try reading Peter Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" where he contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77)

By looking at the Look Inside results on Amazon, we can see that Gill is discussing published scientific literature but we cannot see what Gill himself is saying about it. This is the abstract describing the chapter wherein pages 76-77 are included:

Quote:
Abstract

It is never a good idea to highlight problems without providing the remedy. “Trace-DNA” is valuable evidence provided it is reported by constant reference to the published literature to support inferences. DNA evidence retrieved from underneath fingernails is used as the example. This is the best-researched evidence transfer that is commonly reported in serious violent assaults. Typically, a victim defends him/herself against an assailant and DNA is transferred from the perpetrator. Once a suspect is identified, a common defense will be that the transfer was from innocent transfer via passive social contact several days earlier. It is possible to evaluate the relative likelihoods of the prosecution vs. the defense propositions of transfer and persistence by referring to published experimental evidence. A generalized statement format is described, along with the limitations of evidence that can be adduced. The method explained follows the “scientific method” in order to avoid “speculation” on the part of the scientist. This reduces the chance of cognitive errors, especially confirmation bias.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...24172142000036

So, no. PAGE 76-77 is not providing a quote from GILL. It merely cites the pages from which ERGON is paraphrasing something that Gill is referencing.


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited, possible Rule 8

Last edited by Loss Leader; 3rd August 2017 at 08:57 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 03:57 PM   #200
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,043
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Well, I'm not sure who put your little collage together but it contains some mistakes. First, so as to ensure we're dealing with the correct information, here's Giunta's court testimony;

***
Giunta: We can repeat it, I'm 17 - we said what reliefs are - 5 fragments at Sollecito Raffaele are the relief 12), we can even say the annular and left little finger, it was found ...

Comodi: I know it, but not as much as I do. Here, where has this fingerprint been found?

Giunta: Inside the bedroom door behind the living room with kitchenette on the ground floor.

Massei:In the bedroom ...

Giunta: The ground floor is the only floor we have also done because ...

Massei:Excuse me, what bedroom?

Comodi: And so, in short, the famous edge of the Mezzetti room, the Mezzetti room door, right?

Giunta: 12) should be that of the Mezzetti. Then the 68), the left palm, the outside face of the victim's bedroom door.

Comodi: Outside?

Giunta: External face, then external face access.

Comodi: Yup.

Giunta: Pad 70) left thumb, victim's bedroom outdoor door side and 1'86, pad 86) left palm at fridge door.

Comodi: Well, these are the ones that have been attributed to your Solicitors by your colleagues?

Giunta: Exactly, 5 fragments etc, etc. 1 fragment was attributed to Knox, and it is the relief 103) the right glass index found on the kitchen sink.

***

To summarize;

(12) Laura's bedroom door
(68) Outside face of Meredith's door
(70) Outside face of Meredith's door
(86) Refrigerator

So, the mistakes in your collage;

12 is from Laura's door, not the refrigerator
86 is from the refrigerator, not Laura's door
68 and 70 are from the outside of Meredith's bedroom door.

Giunta makes no mention of Fr. 72. That's because Fr. 72 was unidentified and so not relevant. The print diagram is entirely correct except they wrote 72 instead of 70 for the second print on the outside of Meredith's door, as proven by Giunta's testimony.

If you think any of this is incorrect then please provide Giunta testimony that contradicts the testimony I quoted above.

Clear now?

ETA: Interestingly, in your collage you correctly point out that Fr. 12 constitutes two of Sollecito print fragments - the ring finger and the little finger - yet you go on to claim there are three prints on the door, Fr. 68 and two prints identified as Fr. 72. If this was true then there would have been six Sollecito fragments, not five. Who the hell is doing your proof thinking? ....I'd fire 'em!
I can guess who drew up that diagram with the wrong information. Speaking of incorrect photoshopped creations. who can forget Knox's shoeprint being found on the paper in Filomena's room?

Can I be forgiven for getting some satisfaction (ok....a good laugh) when Vixen provides the links that actually disprove her own claims?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 2nd August 2017 at 04:00 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 02:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.