Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry17
Oski,
You're doing a wonderful job. I am glad someone took over making these idiots look ******ed.
Credibility gone. Anyone that thinks Oski is accomplishing something in this thread no matter what your view of the case is, can't be taken seriously.
Quote:
239,
You're a moron. I have no interest in returning to this topic but since I am here now I might as well address your last post.
Wise choice, Henry.
Quote:
1) The video of the collection shows the forensic team doing some things that do not adhere to perfect protocol.
B.S. This is common sense. You're talking about a sink where there is going to be a ton of biological material. If you sample from inches wide areas the way they did, especially by repeatedly swiping as if you were cleaning the area, you are going to mix the material. Refusing to address that substantive point makes it obvious that you're trying to gloss over what the actual arguments and ignore what the collection video shows and what it means about the results produced from that collection.
Quote:
2) These deviations from protocol are minor and of the type that could never lead to incriminating DNA evidence being the result of the deviations from protocol. Quite the contrary all the deviations would lead to the destruction of DNA evidence.
Again, it is mind boggling that you are arguing that the way they collected the sink samples would not mix anything together and would actually destroy the DNA!
Quote:
3) C&V's argument was that since the forensic team made these irrelevant protocol deviations the court should exclude the incriminating evidence even though the deviations are not relevant.
C&V didn't address the mixed DNA samples so you're conflating all of the collection together. As far as the bra clasp is concerned. It was not simply the collection that led C&V to advise that the DNA result shouldn't be considered, but you already know that.
Quote:
4) Hellmann because he was bribed or ******ed accepted the argument in #3. The Supreme Court said lol no. To consider the incriminating DNA evidence questionable the defence must establish that there were deviations in accepted protocols that could have led to the incriminating evidence being a false positive. Establishing that the forensic team did not follow irrelevant protocols is not sufficient to discredit the evidence.
Again, that wasn't the only argument, but you already know that. This all comes back to the prosecution appeal that the Supreme Court lapped up that argued that transfer needs to be proven. I think anyone reasonable and rational sees why that argument isn't persuasive as it places an unreasonable burden on the defense.
Quote:
5) The defence failed to establish that there was any reasonable reason to doubt the incriminating DNA evidence so the incriminating DNA evidence is accepted.
Again, anyone reasonable and rational understands why the bra clasp evidence can't be shown to be related to the murder despite the logical gymnastics of the prosecution and Supreme Court.
Quote:
Anyway, carry on. I see they have sent reinforcements but unfortunately for you they are even dumber than you -- which is pretty impressive given how low of a bar that is to get under.
Thanks for putting your outright insanity on display here. You and Oski believe that there is an orchestrated effort to disagree with you in this thread. In addition to this paranoid delusion, you've also argued conspiracies reaching to the highest level of the Italian government. You're clearly a reasonable contributor here.