I can see there's a strong argument for banning someone who clearly and over a long period of time has shown no interest in honest debate, but I'd favour a mod final warning first.

There's Professor David Balding, whose views on Sample 165B you should be familiar with. Professor Balding believes that the strength of the Sollecito profile discounts environmental contamination and that 165B constitutes strong evidence against Sollecito.

There's also Professor Giuseppe Novelli, renowned geneticist and rector of University of Rome Tor Vergata. You know. That Tor Vergata. The one that had to take over the duties of University of Rome La Sapienza's Medico-Legal Institute, where Assistant Professor Carla Vecchiotti works, because of that institute's gross negligence and incompetence, as evidenced by the horrifying stacks of rotting decade-old corpses in the corridors.

Professor Novelli appeared for the prosecution in Knox-Sollecito. But then Professor Gill is acting for the Sollecito defence. By Gill's own account, he was approached at a conference by Vincenzo Pascali, former Sollecito defence consultant, and then introduced to Carla Vecchiotti, who was filmed shaking hands with Francesco and Vanessa Sollecito in court during the Hellmann appeal hearings and was later seen by journalists wining and dining with the Sollecito defence lawyers in the bars and restaurants of Perugia.

Professor Gill has also told several idiotic lies about both 36B and 165B. And he isn't quite a real career professor. He got the Oslo job after he was made redundant from the UK Forensic Science Service when it was unwisely shut down by the Cameron government. He falls into that unfortunate class known as 'disgruntled ex-employees' and he has sought to discredit all DNA evidence going back to the Colin Pitchfork case which fortuitously made his name, when he did some of the lab work for Alec Jeffreys and got a courtesy co-author credit on the resulting academic paper. Alec Jeffreys he ain't.

The rest of your post, with its ritual auto-repeat lies and memes and its 'eh' and 'sorry' stuff, seems to bear out Henry 17's remark that you're a kind of human bot and I can't be bothered to read it.

I wouldn't wish it on anyone, even 239, but he was banned last time for 'making this thread suck' and he's still at it.

When you can't beat him, beg for him to be banned.

Be more pathetic guys.

Edit..and just making sure, corpus unironically quoted Agent Fox Mulder, correct?

meh, I don't think we're whining and he was banned previously for what we are accusing him of now. Also, he is beating the Guilty side like the Black Knight beat King Arthur.

239's blithering and blustering did give me the opportunity to show that contrary to 239's claims, Guede did in fact name Knox and Sollecito as the culprits even before he was arrested.

Funny how when I check 239's sources it turns out they are in truth the complete opposite of what he claims.

Really, the more 239 makes overblown and factually wrong assertions, the stronger the case for Knox's and Sollecito's involvement seems to become.

Maybe this is the 'guilter posing as an Knox groupie' that High Jack warned us about.

Just start here, with the 'mountain of evidence' of Guede's motive to commit murder of a person he was barely acquainted with.

I'd be surprised if you could come up with a molehill of evidence.

Again, looking into your claim proves that you are making a false assertion:

It's rather too bad you have no familiarity with logic, reason, critical thinking, or intellectual honesty - but if you did you wouldn't be a Knox Groupie, would you?

OK, two things. Stop using the guilter wiki as a source moron. Secondly you are completely wrong. There is a difference between mixed DNA and mixed blood. In this case there was no mixed blood at all. There is video evidence of the crime scene techs collecting samples in a completely and totally inappropriate way that would almost ensure these types of results, btw.

lol. Says the guy who relies entirely on the defense appellate briefs.

Another lie from the weaseling crop duster! You rule Oski.

Did you read any of the Court Reports after Hellman? No.

Did you read any of the Prosecution briefs? No.

Did you read any of the trial transcripts? No.

Did you read the Defense appellate briefs? Yes.

Did you email Frank Sforza to get his insight into the case? Yes.

Did you watch the Netflix movie? Yes, it's on a playback loop.

So, aside from the Netflix movie, Frank Sforza and Defense briefs, what do you rely on?

Amanda had no wounds or cuts. Where did this alleged blood come from???

That's a good question. Other than a mark on her neck, I don't recall anything about that.

Also blood isn't "extremely rich" in dna. As far as human tissue goes, it's quite poor in DNA on a per weight basis. Red blood cells don't have DNA. Platelets don't have DNA. Plasma doesn't have DNA. So, a given blood sample is 55% plasma and 45% RBCs with less than 1% being the buffy coat which is composed of a mixture of white blood cells and platelets. Only white blood cells in blood have DNA, so somewhat less than 1 part per hundred of blood actually contains any DNA. Compare that with say skin cells, where each and every cell has DNA. So, given that touch DNA could easily consist of skin cells I see no reason why a flake of Amanda's skin in Meredith's blood couldn't easily produce the same electropherogram peak.

I seem to remember something about her earring being ripped out.

You're wrong about most of the above and I'm not sure what it has to do with the lie that I only rely on the appeal submissions, but yay Oski is freaking out again everybody. Welcome back weasel!

She botched an ear piercing weeks before and the blood on the faucet was from that. It was in a different coagulated state so they knew it wasn't related to the murder. It also makes it difficult to believe there was some sort of concerted clean up effort if they didn't wipe down the faucet a single time.

So basically they found Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom. Shocking!

There is a difference between what you (may have) read, and what you rely upon. You rely entirely upon the Defense Briefs.

You have put no independent thought into this matter - and it shows. This is why you cannot answer any questions and establish any argument points.

Also, its funny you address your comment to "everybody" since almost nobody takes anything you have to say seriously.

Oski, restating the lie isn't going to help you. It's still a lie. But please continue to freak out because it's pretty entertaining to watch you flail about.

Nope.

lol, sure. Go ahead and deny it. In any event, since you are 180 degrees wrong on the facts, I guess it doesn't really matter what source you use.

It tested positive for human blood, and had both Meredith's and Knox's DNA.

The DNA peaks are equally strong, which suggests that it is mixed blood.

In fact, Knox herself admits it is her blood that was not there before the brutal torture and murder of her house mate:

Legal experts who follow this case have suggested that blood evidence cannot be dated and therefore could have been left weeks before the murder. But when Knox testified in her own defense in June, she conceded that there was no blood in the bathroom the day before the murder, effectively dating those blood stains to that night. (Barbie Nadeau, Newseek, 14 July 2009).

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?...lood_evidence/



Pro Tip:

Don't keep calling people who are more intelligent than you are 'morons', since that just indicates that you're even stupider than a moron.

This guy who claims he is 'detail oriented' also forgot to read the transcript of the Skype exchange by Guede since everything he claimed about it was false.

Logic says nosebleed. Knox also lost her lowest ear stud, which seems to be missing in pictures taken the next day. But the position of the shelf above the washbasin means your nose is more likely to be over the tap / faucet than your ear. Or her own nose or ear blood and the victim's blood could have been on her hand. Knox's story about her ear was probably misdirection to account for the missing stud and, of course, the blood on the tap, which was found by police. She herself said that that blood wasn't there the day before.

It probably wasn't. But the reason she didn't wipe it off during the clean-up is likely to be that she failed to notice it because of the reflection of the orange-brown pine-board ceiling in the chrome of the tap. If you stand at the washbasin, the reflection tends to appear just where the spot of blood was, as can be seen in the crime-scene photographs.