Yes. Except I don't think the experts are wrong -- I think they are lying. I think the review was heavily influenced by Dr. Greg Hampikian and possibly even written by him.

Carla Vecchioti and Stefano Conti are not bright but they are academics and yet they show a level of understanding that is below what I would expect from someone with an undergrad education.

What do you think Dr. Gino is relying on here? Stefanoni's records.

If Stefanoni had suppressed the TMB test, there would be no such record.

Well it seems pretty clear that you thought Dr. Gino was Stefanoni but w/e.

The point is she was supposedly asked under oath if she tested for blood and said no. We don't have the trial transcripts but I'm assuming this is correct. It was a July hearing where this came to light, that according to the records they did indeed test for TMB, that's what you're quoting. It's not clear if there was a delay in turning over those records but I suspect there was.

But no one pro-guilt objected to these experts when they were appointed. Did the prosecution object to their credentials?

And what is Greg Hampikian's motivation. He's the head of the Idaho Innocence project irc?

No idea. I do know that these experts were asked to consult on a different unrelated case and that their report was rejected by the court and new consultants were brought in.

He is a strong Knox supporter.

He's knowledgeable on matters of DNA though wouldn't you agree? Just because he thinks they're innocent doesn't mean his an idiot right.

but stefoni is a liar because she thinks knox is guilty?

He is but the United States had / has issues with LCN DNA.

manifesto today??

It's not really that simple and there are different degrees of lying. If she deliberately tried to hide the fact that they did TMB testing and it was negative and then in court still argued it was blood knowing the further testing didn't support it I think it's pretty safe to say she's not being forthright.

You can also make an argument that she was essentially looking for evidence of AK and RS rather than just analyzing the evidence in an unbiased way.

People do think they became so entrenched that a conspiracy was possible but again there is no proof, just patterns. I just think they were too proud to reverse course especially under such extreme media scrutiny.

Do you agree or disagree with his positions on the DNA in this case?

Maybe very late tonight but most likely tomorrow.

Except it is pretty clear that never happened. If she wanted to hide that she would have. There is no way for the defence to discover this.

Other than just parroting this like a good little boy could you please explain how she would do this?

Be very specific.

I honestly don't know his positions. The reason I suspect his involvement is because of the unexpected high concentration of reference from the United States and even stranger the high concentration of DNA reference manuals from the United States mid-west.

With respect to LCN DNA that the United States is behind the curve on this is not really an issue. LCN is used in a lot of places including the UK. Of greatest importance to this case is that LCN is used in Italy. The United States seems to be catching up though and New York state has now allowed LCN in a criminal case in 2010. I have zero doubts in the science and use of LCN DNA.

In relation to the DNA or just in general? Do you know if she tested for the other roomates DNA in samples or just for the kids?