So did the prosecution talk about missing clothes or not?

This is complete BS. Hellman had to straight up order them to stop stalling and turn over documents to the Independent Experts.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/20...x-prosecution/

So answer this question. How many luminol hits were there and how many of those luminol hits tested for DNA? I've posted what I believe is true. You're describing L8 as one area when your other quote describes L8 as being a part of exhibit 183. Is L8 the print or is 183? I'm just trying to clarify what we're both arguing.

I've stated what Amanda's appeal states so lets' try to figure out how you're saying their wrong. My guess is they knew the evidence better than you but if we can prove them wrong that's fine.

I find it fascinating that you would argue anything that tested positive with luminol but negative with TMB and for DNA would even be germane to the murder, btw.

You're talking about the appeal now. We were talking about the trial.

You're talking about the negative controls. We were talking about TMB for the Luminol prints, which wasn't part of the review.

Awesome cite of Dempsey, though. Corroborated on View from Wilmington. You're aware that the item they were "withholding" was the negative control tests they had already filed with Micheli three years prior?

This is from Amanda's appeal summary I'll get the Italian when I have a second as it might have more details in it which is what I've found to be the difference between the summary and the original version.

See above. I don't think they are making this up for the appeal I think this is what actually happened. You can't definitively say she lied and intentionally withheld the evidence for certain but it seems that is a reasonable interpretation.

And it doesn't take much to discredit Stefanoni. Just watch the collection videos and read the independent expert report. I think she wanted to get a specific result and go it. I think that's a trend you see in the investigation where they find the forensics that prove their narrative and ignore those that refute it.

Why are you too stupid, even though you've been told 40 times now, to understand why a summary (not even the legal argument, the summary) of a defense brief is not a "source?"

Would you be happy if they had just convicted her using the summary of the prosecutor's brief and then just gone home and left her in prison? That's what you're doing here.

That sounds fake given TMB is not confirmatory test blood and the only people who think it is are pro-Amanda people.

Find me a source that is not injusticeinperugia. If this is true it would have been reported in a newspaper.

We could use the prosecution appeal which they also filed. The point you're missing is i'm not using the appeal to prove my argument. I'm using the appeal to show that things were argued when the pro-guilt side here is basically saying stuff never happened. Do you see the difference?

If someone says the 112 call was never debunked at the trial and I use the appeal to show where they discuss that it was debunked at the trial I'm using to show that in fact information was presented at the trial in relation to that specific point.

Also I think it's fine to assume unless otherwise refuted that the evidence itself not the interpretation of what it means when mentioned in the appeal is probably accurate.

So if Amanda's appeal says that 6 out 9 of the luminol hits tested negative for DNA this isn't a point that's in dispute, this is what the evidence was at the trial. They're not making an interpretation they're stating the evidence itself.

Do you see the difference? They're saying this evidence didn't exist.

WTF are you talking about?

- You said Stefanoni suppressed that she had administered a TMB test.
- I quoted the passage in the trial reasoning that proved you wrong.
- You said you were "pretty sure" regardless.
- I said **** that.
- You then said that two years later she "withheld" from the appeal reviewers totally unrelated documentation for the negative controls, which led the reviewers to believe that the control tests were not done. They "withheld" this documentation because it had already been filed with Micheli's court, but eventually gave C+V another copy.
- I pointed this out.
- You say you think "this" is what actually happened -- what's "this?" You've just conflated two events, two years apart, in two investigative areas.

Is your mind really this garbled, or are you trying to con people?

You realize Stefanoni is certified while Vecchioti is a non-certified academic who failed her certification exam.

I've already said in this thread that TMB isn't a confirmatory test but rather another presumptive test. What you've failed to do is tell us why they use it after Luminol. I don't think you want to because it proves your logic on this isn't up to par.

So your argument is that there were no erroneous interpretations and the independent experts were wrong?

This is what you posted.

The she here is Dr. Gino, Amanda's expert. You realize that right? If you do realize that why would you say It seems as though you believe she is Stefanoni, yes?