Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Diocletus]

OK, thanks. That's interesting. I will check the link. So C-V took Stef at her word when she said A-B tested positive for quantification and she proceeded to amplification but that C did not so, inferentially, they assumed she went no further with it. Is that right?

Can you explain the highlighted part? I thought the Qubit returned a 'too low' result and could not be persuaded to do anything more. Cripes! I have even looked at bleedin' manuals of the damn machine to check how it works (this is what comes of engaging too closely with Kaosium btw - be warned )

See the bottom of page 4 of this: http://tools.lifetechnologies.com/content/sfs/manuals/mp32851.pdf

Since she was diluting her sample 1:200, the setup that she was using was simply not sensitive and was incapable of detecting LCN samples. But, she tested LCN samples as a matter of course as can be seen from what she was doing elsewhere. So, she just took all of the "too lows" (there were lots of them) and threw them into the amplification machine.

 

[Diocletus]

You think they decided the knife result was good due to bias and the bias set in when the newspapers were told the knife result was good. Maybe so. They also heard a lot of evidence from both sides and were presumably told by the judges to have regard only to what they saw and heard in court. At least as prejudicial, I would argue more, were:

1 the non-disclosure of relevant records of the scientific tests (which is continuing) and

2 the effective stifling of questions or submissions tending to suggest Stefanoni was corrupt

3 the wilful disregard for rigorous scientific protocols in Italy's courts.

Well, yes, those are all bad. But the knife happened first.

BTW, the ECtHR doesn't only care about what happens in court. They also care about public accusations against a defendant before they have had a fair trial.

 

[Grinder]

Hi Grinder,


Why are you so hardheaded about this simple fact?
Because some court papers spelled it wrong?
Come on...
RW

The Giordano Report: which can found on Amanda's page also uses Rudi. This is his final guilty verdict. In the legal system they spell it with an "i" most of the time.

The man convicted of killing Meredith is Rudi Guede.

It seems that both spellings are used and I don't see why using the one that he was convicted under is a big deal.

Maybe Rudi wanted to change it to Rudy and was able to do that without legally doing it on his drivers license.

 

[Grinder]

Cristian Tramontano, whose brief deposition the subject of July 1, 2008 was acquired at the hearing of June 6, 2009, testified about an [attempted] robbery in his home, carried out by a young man who, seeing that he had been observed, tried to exit the house and, finding the door locked, pulled out a jackknife with which he threatened Tramontano, who was following him to make him leave the house. Tramontano declared that he believed he recognised that the thief was Rudy when he saw his picture published in the newspapers.
It is hard to believe Frank's version. A guy is in your apartment in the middle of the night and he just asks the guy to leave and then doesn't file a police report after the guy pulls a knife.

I can't find his deposition to read the original.

 

[carbonjam72]

DNA testing - Predictably sloppy = 'good shot' or a 'sure thing'?

This case definitely needs someone to walk through the DNA evidence in relatively simple terms, possibly for YouTube.

I think Stefanoni got lucky with the knife, but I suspect that she has been doing sloppy work for some time, and perhaps getting lucky in similar ways now and again in other cases.* With respect to the clasp, she claimed that only Meredith's and Raffaele's DNA was present, when it is obvious that there are other contributors, especially to the Y chromosomal egram. Whoever stored the clasp destroyed evidence, probably deliberately. Their should be consequences for that, but I am not holding my breath. I am, however, switching my allegiance from Italian bicycles to Japanese.
*EDT
meaning that if one does sloppy work enough times, some mistakes will show up that are favorable to the prosecution. If one knows that one can hide portions of the data, the mistakes then can become evidence.

Ok, so this is very close to an answer. If she is routinely "sloppy", and knows she can get 'findings' that occasionally show up that are favorable to the prosecution, does she know before she starts testing the knife, that she can "find" meredith's DNA, if she tries hard enough?

(Especially given the fact that Meredith's DNA had been tested in the lab on the same equipment, in quantity at some point previously. Exposure to open air? Residue in the machine that becomes readable by amping up the noise?)

Or does she think if she runs enough samples, in small enough (i.e. unreliable) quantity, in non-repeatable (by destroying evidence) and non-verifable testing (by hiding data), she has a good shot at achieving that 'finding' AND depriving the defense of any opportunity to dispute it?

It seems to me, that her having constructive knowledge that the target DNA is, or has been recently, physically present in the lab, then she's effectively cheating by specifically looking for a residual trace contamination, and claiming its a 'finding' of legitimate analysis.
Is having a "good shot" at finding the result she needs by playing up to and beyond the edge of reliability, enough certainty for the police to believe they can pick out any knife at random, and, "it will do"?

Do the police believe Stefanoni can 'probably find a DNA match', or certainly will find a match?

Knowing the order of testing samples, how close are they to having tested Meredith's DNA is relevant, no? If it's closer in time, and they know it AND conceal it, doesn't that suggest they are 'playing' with contamination and full well know it?

There's not much of a difference between 'good shot' and a 'sure thing', but look at the timing. Wasn't it the day after Raf's family disproved the shoe print was Raf's, that Stefanoni came up with these 2 crucial DNA matches?

It's a small difference, but still a difference. I'm starting to lean to the 'good shot' camp', though I was probably a 'sure thing' when I started writing this post. On balance, I don't think she's competent or ethical. So a 'sure thing' doesn't seem to fit her vocabulary, because everything she does is half-way. If it's just a 'good shot' combined with the ability to hide the data and destroy the sample so no re-testing, well that's a strategy.

Maybe the most interesting question is the mindset. What does she think she's doing? Good science, Good police work, or Good framing?

 

[acbytesla]

The Giordano Report: which can found on Amanda's page also uses Rudi. This is his final guilty verdict. In the legal system they spell it with an "i" most of the time.

The man convicted of killing Meredith is Rudi Guede.

It seems that both spellings are used and I don't see why using the one that he was convicted under is a big deal.

Maybe Rudi wanted to change it to Rudy and was able to do that without legally doing it on his drivers license.

You're amazing Grinder. You're like the people that call Muhammad Ali Cassius Clay. I would think that regardless of how the Italian judiciary refers to them an institution which seems determined to make mistakes, you would acknowledge the fact that the man himself spells his name with a y. (shaking my head)

 

[Diocletus]

It seems to me, that her having constructive knowledge that the target DNA is, or has been recently, physically present in the lab, then she's effectively cheating by specifically looking for a residual trace contamination, and claiming its a 'finding' of legitimate analysis.
Is having a "good shot" at finding the result she needs by playing up to and beyond the edge of reliability, enough certainty for the police to believe they can pick out any knife at random, and, "it will do"?

Do the police believe Stefanoni can 'probably find a DNA match', or certainly will find a match?

Knowing the order of testing samples, how close are they to having tested Meredith's DNA is relevant, no? If it's closer in time, and they know it AND conceal it, doesn't that suggest they are 'playing' with contamination and full well know it?

Well, the prosecution's answer to this is that there was a "Six Day Gap" between the testing of 36b and the most recent Kercher sample.

If you look here, you will understand the "Six Day Gap": http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/missing-profiles-draft/

The thing is, though, the lab wasn't doing that much in those Six Days (7-12 November), and what it was doing . . . well, we don't know what it was doing.

One thing, though, is that the "Six Days" doesn't mean much when you look at individual pieces of equipment. For example, it seem to me likely that the Qubit Flourometer was not used during the Six Days (it appears that she was using the Real Time instead), and thus, for that piece of equipment, there is effectively no "Gap."

As to amplification, it appears that there were less than 50 samples run during the Six Day Gap, and only a few plates of electrophoresis.

So, I don't know that this "Gap" is any big deal. It would be better to have real controls to show no contamination, but I can't confirm that she actually ran any of those when she was quantifying via Qubit Flourometer.

 

[Grinder]

You're amazing Grinder. You're like the people that call Muhammad Ali Cassius Clay. I would think that regardless of how the Italian judiciary refers to them an institution which seems determined to make mistakes, you would acknowledge the fact that the man himself spells his name with a y. (shaking my head)

Really it's the same as calling Muhammad Ali Cassius Clay which is an intentional insult to Muhammad?

I read the records and before I translate them he is Rudi - I don't see why it's a problem.

Now if I was complaining that the rest of you are not using the correct spelling of the man convicted that would be something else.

Work on your analogies.

Is the ship still waiting for Bertha?

 

[acbytesla]

Really it's the same as calling Muhammad Ali Cassius Clay which is an intentional insult to Muhammad?

I read the records and before I translate them he is Rudi - I don't see why it's a problem.

Now if I was complaining that the rest of you are not using the correct spelling of the man convicted that would be something else.

Work on your analogies.

Is the ship still waiting for Bertha?

Muhammad Ali would consider it wrong to call him Cassius Clay. To him that is a "slave name" not his real name. As for Rudy, it's not really a problem. But you're the guy who insists on dotting the Is crossing the Ts. In fact, you are definitely kind of anal about this kind of thing.

I could really care less how you refer to the murderous scumbag, but I would think that person him self would be considered "the ultimate authority" on how to spell his own name.

As for Bertha, she's tired and will be taking a rest for the next year.

 

[js202]

We're not sure in Italy. It may be wet or it may just be "compatible" with wet.

Indeed. And, even then, only when it corroborates that Amanda Knox robbed Meredith Kercher's purse, despite the fact that it was Rudy Guede's fingerprints on the item.

 

[Grinder]

Muhammad Ali would consider it wrong to call him Cassius Clay. To him that is a "slave name" not his real name. As for Rudy, it's not really a problem. But you're the guy who insists on dotting the Is crossing the Ts. In fact, you are definitely kind of anal about this kind of thing.

I could really care less how you refer to the murderous scumbag, but I would think that person him self would be considered "the ultimate authority" on how to spell his own name.

As for Bertha, she's tired and will be taking a rest for the next year.

Oh I thought she was starting up the next day

His name is clearly spelled both ways and I use the one that the official court records use that convicted him.

And yes your analogy was ridiculous because Ali changed his name for a purpose. If someone wrote Aly instead of Ali that would be the analogy and of course there would have to be a reason, such as that's how the court spelled it when they went after him for draft evasion.

It is not of the same nature as your repeating the gold watch fable and ignoring requests to produce the proof Nina sent you. I hope someone on the defense is looking into the story because if verified it is another significant detail.

 

[carbonjam72]

Six Day Gap at Dr Stefanoni's Magical Emporium

Well, the prosecution's answer to this is that there was a "Six Day Gap" between the testing of 36b and the most recent Kercher sample.

If you look here, you will understand the "Six Day Gap": http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/missing-profiles-draft/

The thing is, though, the lab wasn't doing that much in those Six Days (7-12 November), and what it was doing . . . well, we don't know what it was doing.

One thing, though, is that the "Six Days" doesn't mean much when you look at individual pieces of equipment. For example, it seem to me likely that the Qubit Flourometer was not used during the Six Days (it appears that she was using the Real Time instead), and thus, for that piece of equipment, there is effectively no "Gap."

As to amplification, it appears that there were less than 50 samples run during the Six Day Gap, and only a few plates of electrophoresis.

So, I don't know that this "Gap" is any big deal. It would be better to have real controls to show no contamination, but I can't confirm that she actually ran any of those when she was quantifying via Qubit Flourometer.

I tried to slug through the page link (actually, I was on it before I saw your post, so at least I'm looking in the right place).

What I noticed from the page link, is that the lab apparently is regularly doing LCN DNA testing, with apparently no scientifically recognized methodology.

Also, there's apparently a significant amount of missing data, referred to as suppression. I don't believe it can all be explained as innocent. The 'cat profiles' from downstairs that return as 'human profiles', what's that about? Beyond that, the wide description of missing data on the page.

What gets me is the selectivity of missing data. Am I wrong, or does it seem things tend to go missing around the really important 'findings', for example, the five missing blood samples from downstairs (ID 600-604), we would expect those to be 'kercher', right?

ID 626 and 628, male semen profiles from rectal and vagina swabs are missing. (although 1 vaginal swab is positive for Guede).

The concentration of missing data around Raf's kitchen knife (ID 770 and 771), showing Kercher and Knox. An 89% suppression rate in this entire 2 day run (batch 2, Nov 13-14, 2007), is amazing, and this is where the extraordinarily helpful results are found.

The bra clasp wasn't found until 6 weeks later though, right?

It seems like a Jackson Pollock painting, where they have an abstract mess over a large canvas. Then by selectively showing what they want, and concealing what they don't want, they can create an impression of a 'finding'. As long as nobody looks too closely.

It's very hard to believe this process isn't intentional, and Stefanoni has a pretty good idea of what she'll be able to produce, if she looks at the right time, and properly frames her findings. It's too bad there aren't any 'polizia' for the 'polizia'.

Can I call them the PUH-LEEZIA?

So yes, they have answer, but it lacks plausibility when considered osmotically with the balance of their deceptive practices.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh I thought she was starting up the next day

His name is clearly spelled both ways and I use the one that the official court records use that convicted him.

And yes your analogy was ridiculous because Ali changed his name for a purpose. If someone wrote Aly instead of Ali that would be the analogy and of course there would have to be a reason, such as that's how the court spelled it when they went after him for draft evasion.

It is not of the same nature as your repeating the gold watch fable and ignoring requests to produce the proof Nina sent you. I hope someone on the defense is looking into the story because if verified it is another significant detail.

No, his name is not clearly spelled both ways, just as in today I saw more than a dozen media outlets say that Amanda's alibi is thrown into doubt by a CCTV image from the car park at 8:53. But when you actually look at the image, it looks more like a young man going in the opposite direction of the cottage. Just because people are willing to make the same mistake over and over doesn't mean it is right.

As for Ali, those are Muhammad Ali's words about the name "Cassius Clay" not mine. He in fact does think it is is offensive to call him by that name. Yes, he changed his name for "a purpose". He changed his religion and to "honor his new God", he chose to change his name. As opposed to going by the name "Clay" which is the name of the plantation farmers that owned his ancestors and Cassius, which is a Roman name.

Now, I find it quite interesting that you are now saying that the "gold watch" is a fable. But interesting since I have never read a single article disputing this. And considering that the Italian authorities have been willing to put the hammer down on anything favorable to Amanda and Raffaele that might be false...why hasn't anyone disputed this?

Never mind the fact, that Amanda Raffaele, Patick King and Nina Burleigh has written about this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you, interesting article in as much as the reported comments relating to the Vecchiotti and Conti, if accurate it appears that the Florence motivations are critical of Vecchiotti and Conti findings and then some.

Also the defence teams have 45 days to lodge their appeal, not much time.

I doubt there will be an answer, but carbonjam72 has pointed out a couple of things about Nencini's report that I wondered if you have an opinion on.

You're one of the few who keeps repeating that perhaps Nencini has invalidated the Conti & Vecchiotti report.

As such, then, do you agree with Nencini that:

- contaminated evidence is not relevant in a criminal trial?
- if there was contamination, then MORE of Raffaele's DNA would have been found than a hotly contested single Y-Haplotype?
- the implication of which is that MORE DNA of Raffaele's would NOT have been seen as incriminating towards RAffaele.
- because C &V are mistaken, that Stefanoni must have complied with all of their requests for data?​

I don't think there will be an answer. Is it easy to stand with the Nencini report?

 

[Grinder]

Well, the prosecution's answer to this is that there was a "Six Day Gap" between the testing of 36b and the most recent Kercher sample.

If you look here, you will understand the "Six Day Gap": http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/missing-profiles-draft/

The thing is, though, the lab wasn't doing that much in those Six Days (7-12 November), and what it was doing . . . well, we don't know what it was doing.

One thing, though, is that the "Six Days" doesn't mean much when you look at individual pieces of equipment. For example, it seem to me likely that the Qubit Flourometer was not used during the Six Days (it appears that she was using the Real Time instead), and thus, for that piece of equipment, there is effectively no "Gap."

As to amplification, it appears that there were less than 50 samples run during the Six Day Gap, and only a few plates of electrophoresis.

So, I don't know that this "Gap" is any big deal. It would be better to have real controls to show no contamination, but I can't confirm that she actually ran any of those when she was quantifying via Qubit Flourometer.

Does this mean the lab wasn't processing anything on any case? I'm curious in relationship to their ability to test other knives etc.

 

[Grinder]

No, his name is not clearly spelled both ways, just as in today I saw more than a dozen media outlets say that Amanda's alibi is thrown into doubt by a CCTV image from the car park at 8:53. But when you actually look at the image, it looks more like a young man going in the opposite direction of the cottage. Just because people are willing to make the same mistake over and over doesn't mean it is right.

Tesla what in the world does a newspaper story about a video have to do with how an official court document spells the convicted party's name?

As little as I think of the Italian courts I believe that they get the spelling of the defendant right most all of the time. You obviously haven't spent much time looking at the original documents of Rudi's trial. You might want to read a little more from the sources and less true crime novels.

As for Ali, those are Muhammad Ali's words about the name "Cassius Clay" not mine. He in fact does think it is is offensive to call him by that name. Yes, he changed his name for "a purpose". He changed his religion and to "honor his new God", he chose to change his name. As opposed to going by the name "Clay" which is the name of the plantation farmers that owned his ancestors and Cassius, which is a Roman name.

Tesla what in the world are you talking about. I never said that Ali wouldn't mind being called Cassius Clay. I know about Ali. I certainly don't need you to tell me about him. He and I both fought the draft. He was a couple of years ahead of me and was an inspiration. Luckily, I achieved CO status.

Now, I find it quite interesting that you are now saying that the "gold watch" is a fable. But interesting since I have never read a single article disputing this. And considering that the Italian authorities have been willing to put the hammer down on anything favorable to Amanda and Raffaele that might be false...why hasn't anyone disputed this?

Please refer me to the reference in court that Rudi stole the watch and burned the neighbor's place. I believe the only mention anybody could find was Nina's book and maybe one other English writer. I searched for any local coverage of a break-in, theft and death of a pet in that time period and found nothing.

Never mind the fact, that Amanda Raffaele, Patrick King and Nina Burleigh has written about this.

Oh my!!!! Patrick King oh boy now what a resource he is. Could you give me his credentials and let me know how he found out about it. As far as I know he is a dedicated supporter of Amanda maybe FOA that posted pro innocence comments for years. I believe his article was in Ground Report or another of the self published media.

Oh and what sources do the kids use? Bayesian logic says 95% it came from Nina or Patrick via Nina.

I thought you were going to produce some documents on this from Nina.

 

[Diocletus]

Does this mean the lab wasn't processing anything on any case? I'm curious in relationship to their ability to test other knives etc.

I don't think that she was processing Kercher-case items during the "Six Day" (really 5-day) gap. That said, she could have been, and she hasn't produced any records to show what she was doing, so who knows. Usually people who want to prove a that they weren't doing something during a gap produce the records to show that they were doing something else, instead of saying: "look, no records of me doing anything, therefore I wasn't doing the thing you say I was."

Again, though, it seems likely to me that the Qubit Flourometer, and maybe the SpeedVac were sitting idle during the Gap, so it's not really a gap as to those machines. Remember: DNA doesn't fly, so if the machine was contaminated before the 5 days, and wasn't used during it, then it would still be contaminated afterwards.

She tested 3 knives on November 13-14.

 

[Poppy1016]

I doubt there will be an answer, but carbonjam72 has pointed out a couple of things about Nencini's report that I wondered if you have an opinion on.

You're one of the few who keeps repeating that perhaps Nencini has invalidated the Conti & Vecchiotti report.

As such, then, do you agree with Nencini that:

- contaminated evidence is not relevant in a criminal trial?
- if there was contamination, then MORE of Raffaele's DNA would have been found than a hotly contested single Y-Haplotype?
- the implication of which is that MORE DNA of Raffaele's would NOT have been seen as incriminating towards RAffaele.
- because C &V are mistaken, that Stefanoni must have complied with all of their requests for data?​

I don't think there will be an answer. Is it easy to stand with the Nencini report?

You won't get a solid answer. I don't know which infuriates me more, people with bad information and wrong opinions, or those that won't take a stand at all and won't give their honest opinion.

 

[Grinder]

I don't think that she was processing Kercher-case items during the "Six Day" (really 5-day) gap. That said, she could have been, and she hasn't produced any records to show what she was doing, so who knows. Usually people who want to prove a that they weren't doing something during a gap produce the records to show that they were doing something else, instead of saying: "look, no records of me doing anything, therefore I wasn't doing the thing you say I was."

Again, though, it seems likely to me that the Qubit Flourometer, and maybe the SpeedVac were sitting idle during the Gap, so it's not really a gap as to those machines. Remember: DNA doesn't fly, so if the machine was contaminated before the 5 days, and wasn't used during it, then it would still be contaminated afterwards.
She tested 3 knives on November 13-14.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla what in the world does a newspaper story about a video have to do with how an official court document spells the convicted party's name?

The point is exactly what I said. Just because the same mistake is made over and over again, doesn't mean that it is right. My guess is that an early court made a mistake on his name and following court documents just kept on repeating that mistake.

I was an heir to my Aunt's estate, Every single court document made the same mistake misspelling my brother's name, also an heir. And there had to be over 40 documents over 3 years.

But I do think my brother knew the spelling of his own name? Or just maybe my brother had been misspelling his own name for 40 years? What do you think? The fact is that people have produced pretty solid evidence how Rudy spelled his name...not some outside party.

Please refer me to the reference in court that Rudi stole the watch and burned the neighbor's place. I believe the only mention anybody could find was Nina's book and maybe one other English writer. I searched for any local coverage of a break-in, theft and death of a pet in that time period and found nothing.

You and I both know that never made into the court. That doesn't mean it wasn't true....but whatever. Still, why hasn't Andrea Vogt a woman or Mignini or any of the PGP ever said that this is a bunch of bull?

I'm curious. Do you believe Amanda is innocent? Or do you just believe that the prosecution failed to prove their case? ....No, don't tell me.