I did that last time you gave me this exact same response. I'll pass.

What most neutrals are going to get out of your posting is "wow, if that's what the defense side is reduced to, maybe she's guilty." And that is rather sad given that you have invested most of a week to arguing that side and that compelling arguments can be made on that side.

Ok, then why did Stefanoni test them with TMB and for that matter why did she say she didn't? Further why did they do no confirmatory testing? We don't know apparently. And finally why was there no DNA found on any of the bare footprint luminol hits?

I'm not avoiding this question at all.

In post 6316 you said this

In post 6318 I said this:

Stop pwning yourself.

None of the luminol hits that were demonstrable bare footprints had DNA. I've cited this a few times for you from Amanda's appeal. The places that had DNA that were revealed by luminol were Amorphous blobs basically.

Injusticeinperugia did not do that as far as I know. Further I've quoted it for you from their summary of her appeal and from the Italian official appeal document. Please adjust your tinfoil hat to ensure better reception and reduce self pwning interwaves.

Given this information was in my response it shows you have no clue. There were 3 loci that matched Amanda.

Yes Vecchiotti did say that which is why she is incompetent or paid off. Her claim was that if you interpret mixed sample electropherogram incorrectly you can find partial profiles of a lot of people. Her claim basically amounted to DNA is not a reliable form of evidence and anyone who was ever convicted based on DNA evidence should not be released because apparently according to Vecchiotti DNA identification is not a science but more like tarot card reading.

Do you understand why I feel the DNA review was bought? Anyone with even the smallest amount of knowledge about DNA would know she was full of ****. So why did she say these things?

Also, I have since found out that Vecchiotti was asked to review DNA on a different case and that her review was tossed for being flawed. Looking for confirmation on this now.

I started doing this just to brain dump because it's hard to find anyone left on the internet that actually will argue the guilt side of this case. I don't care if anyone believes me or not although I suspect many can see how weak Henry's arguments are.

I don't know what to say. If you feel I haven't answered a question you asked either refer me to the post where I didn't answer and I'll try or reask it. Calling me a moron seems to be unproductive.

Also, if I was undecided which I was at one point in fact I thought they must have good evidence against them to charge and convict in the first instance, I would research it for myself and find the most persuasive arguments.

In this case the most persuasive argument is for innocence ainec.

The reality is that they argued that Stefanoni made erroenous interpretations in addition to the possible contamination.

There is no smoking gun proof but I believe the pattern is that Stefanoni is suspect centered and results oriented. She discounts things that don't help what she's trying to prove and attempts to hide them. That was their point imo.

Also her argument was not that DNA is bad science it's that interpreting results incorrectly is, right?

Actually it isn't. The reasons we have experts who go to these big places call universities and devote their lives to a particular small sub-discipline is because these things are not easy. I know you think your judgement matters here but it does not. That is why we have experts.

Don't need to. I know the answer. The reason you don't use the body is because using less accurate data allows you do have more latitude with your interpretation. It basically allows you to lie without actually lying.

Why did the defence experts decline the invitation to come witness the knife DNA test?

You have certainly done that.

None of that disproves that the picture shows that partial print matches Guede's tread.

And nothing you're saying about the experts disproves the points they've made. Either the autopsy photos show the round droplets or they don't. Either the DNA on the knife was good science or it wasn't.

Your strategic arguments about the defense may be true but they don't change the arguments they just add context to them I suppose. And again, in your world every defense expert is a liar and there must be no wrongly accused defendants.

If someone is innocent and their expert proves they are or brings persuasive arguments, you argue those arguments should be discounted because they come from the defense. You have to meet the arguments head on if you want to refute them. You're just attacking the experts themselves.

I guess you've reduced yourself to pot shots and one liners? Well done and keep up the hate brobraski, your negative energy only makes me stronger.

Talking to you like a grown-up doesn't seem to help, and I guess you mean strong in some "repeating into a mirror" way or something, because if your arguments were strong, people sympathetic to your side wouldn't be climbing out to point out that you are a moron.

The only source for this is injusticeinperugia. Can you find a legitimate source that supports this?

We do she said when given the choice between confirming if it is blood or confirming DNA she feels confirming DNA is more valuable information.

There is. That you keep lying about it doesn't change the fact that both the footprint in front of the door and the one in Filomena's room both have Amanda and Meredith's DNA.

Except she didn't. We have the electropherogram. Anyone who understands DNA can repeat Stefanoni's work and get the same result.

That isn't how DNA works.

No. Her argument was that DNA is not science. I'm fairly sure she regretted saying that but she said it.

Instead of continuing to attack me personally why don't you attack my arguments and we can discuss them. That seems more productive than calling me a moron.