Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Supercalifragilistic]

Sollecito was in jail when he made those remarks and never thought that the police would manufacture evidence.

You need to read his book. He has tremendous trouble with now accepting what the police back then told him.... with no ability on his part to refute it at the time.... because he was in jail.

The cops also could pick and choose what they leaked. Case in point is the "I was there," comment Knox said to her mother, secretly recorded then leaked with the wrong interpretation attached to it.

Yet you repeat Raffeale's thing devoid of context. Good for you.[/QUOTE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What ARE you talking about? The man delivered a fabricated story as to how Meredith's DNA got on his knife and you don't think this means he accepts her DNA was on his knife, for crying out loud? Jesus wept. Bad for you, I'm afraid.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sollecito was in jail when he made those remarks and never thought that the police would manufacture evidence.

You need to read his book. He has tremendous trouble with now accepting what the police back then told him.... with no ability on his part to refute it at the time.... because he was in jail.

The cops also could pick and choose what they leaked. Case in point is the "I was there," comment Knox said to her mother, secretly recorded then leaked with the wrong interpretation attached to it.

Yet you repeat Raffeale's thing devoid of context. Good for you.[/QUOTE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What ARE you talking about? The man delivered a fabricated story as to how Meredith's DNA got on his knife and you don't think this means he accepts her DNA was on his knife, for crying out loud? Jesus wept. Bad for you, I'm afraid.

Please address my point. He was in jail at the time and had no way of assessing the truth of what he was told.

When his lawyers found out that at best it was non-blood DNA and in a phantom groove in the knife that no one could see, and that unless it was blood from Meredith.....

..... he realized the whole thing had been a fabrication. The Italian courts, except for Hellmann's, saw it as dangerous to the judicial system to allow inependent assessment of Stefanoni's sub standard work.

Please at least address these points rather than Raffaele's panic not knowing he was being lied to.

Read his book. Discover what he accepts. He accepts that there is no evidence against him. You're trying to freeze in time a panicked response devoid of its context.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Please address my point. He was in jail at the time and had no way of assessing the truth of what he was told.

When his lawyers found out that at best it was non-blood DNA and in a phantom groove in the knife that no one could see, and that unless it was blood from Meredith.....

..... he realized the whole thing had been a fabrication. The Italian courts, except for Hellmann's, saw it as dangerous to the judicial system to allow inependent assessment of Stefanoni's sub standard work.

Please at least address these points rather than Raffaele's panic not knowing he was being lied to.

Read his book. Discover what he accepts. He accepts that there is no evidence against him. You're trying to freeze in time a panicked response devoid of its context.

Yawn.

 

[kwill]

The man delivered a fabricated story . . .

Not what happened. He didn't deliver anything to anybody. He was given a fabricated story. His attempt to find a way to make sense of it doesn't make him the liar.

There was no DNA from Meredith on that knife, no blood, no trace of her at all. Raffaele's mistake was to believe the police when they told him otherwise.

Do you still think the fact of contamination is in question, even though the published test results demonstrate beyond doubt that there are two unidentified males' DNA on the clasp?

 

[Desert Fox]

That is the kind of things that the guilters seem to think as evidence. Amanda buying panties, Amanda possibly having sex on a train, Amanda doing cocaine, Amanda doing a yoga split, Amanda not noticing something. Amanda and Raffaele kissing. The list goes on and on and on.

We are looking for bloody hand prints or foot prints of Amanda / Raff in Meredeth's room
Significant and less prone to contamination DNA evidence of Amanda / Raff in Meredeth's bedroom.
A solid eyewitness that put them at the crime scene at the actual time of the murder.
No other possible perpetrators

Actual solid evidence. . . .

 

[Desert Fox]

Please address my point. He was in jail at the time and had no way of assessing the truth of what he was told.

When his lawyers found out that at best it was non-blood DNA and in a phantom groove in the knife that no one could see, and that unless it was blood from Meredith.....

..... he realized the whole thing had been a fabrication. The Italian courts, except for Hellmann's, saw it as dangerous to the judicial system to allow inependent assessment of Stefanoni's sub standard work.

Please at least address these points rather than Raffaele's panic not knowing he was being lied to.

Read his book. Discover what he accepts. He accepts that there is no evidence against him. You're trying to freeze in time a panicked response devoid of its context.

You know you did not murder somebody and you are being told that a knife at your house has the murder victim's DNA in the form of blood. You try to come up with some explanation because the cops could not be stringing you along.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yawn.

Once again, he did not deliver a fabricated story, he was given a fabricated story. Like Knox was asked at her interrogation to go along with their "theory of the crime" that began with, "See you later" had something to do with Meredith's murder.

Yawn all you want. What is amazing to me is that guilters never accept that the police were part of the problem.

 

[acbytesla]

We are looking for bloody hand prints or foot prints of Amanda / Raff in Meredeth's room
Significant and less prone to contamination DNA evidence of Amanda / Raff in Meredeth's bedroom.
A solid eyewitness that put them at the crime scene at the actual time of the murder.
No other possible perpetrators

Actual solid evidence. . . .

There have been 4 main arguments that the guilters have made about Amanda and Meredith's relationship and how one of these reasons led to why Meredith was murdered.

1. Amanda was a sex fiend and was trying to get Meredith to participate in group sex with Raffaele, who Amanda had known for 8 days and was intimate with and Rudy who she had only met in passing.

2. Amanda and Meredith hated each other and there was deep resentment.

3. Amanda was jealous of Meredith

4. Amanda was a thief and stole Meredith's money.

But the problem with all these arguments is there is not even a minor shred of evidence to support any of them. And as we are now seeing when when we look at the timeline of events from when Amanda moved in 42 days prior to the murder that in fact all the available evidence points to the opposite.

1a.I don't get where anyone would think Amanda was a sex fiend...never has anyone came forward with actual knowledge of this fact. There is no proof that Amanda had ever engaged in group sex ...not to mention any proof that Amanda had ever been with Rudy.

2a. We've just seen more evidence showing that Amanda and Meredith were actually affectionate with each other.

3a.Jealous of Meredith? Why would she be? Never see how or why this would be true.

4a. Amanda as we know actually had plenty of money as well as rich boyfriend. There is nothing to support this either.

 

[Desert Fox]

There have been 4 main arguments that the guilters have made about Amanda and Meredith's relationship and how one of these reasons led to why Meredith was murdered.

1. Amanda was a sex fiend and was trying to get Meredith to participate in group sex with Raffaele, who Amanda had known for 8 days and was intimate with and Rudy who she had only met in passing.

2. Amanda and Meredith hated each other and there was deep resentment.

3. Amanda was jealous of Meredith

4. Amanda was a thief and stole Meredith's money.

But the problem with all these arguments is there is not even a minor shred of evidence to support any of them. And as we are now seeing when when we look at the timeline of events from when Amanda moved in 42 days prior to the murder that in fact all the available evidence points to the opposite.

1a.I don't get where anyone would think Amanda was a sex fiend...never has anyone came forward with actual knowledge of this fact. There is no proof that Amanda had ever engaged in group sex ...not to mention any proof that Amanda had ever been with Rudy.

2a. We've just seen more evidence showing that Amanda and Meredith were actually affectionate with each other.

3a.Jealous of Meredith? Why would she be? Never see how or why this would be true.

4a. Amanda as we know actually had plenty of money as well as rich boyfriend. There is nothing to support this either.

1. I got from Amanda's book that she wants some romance with her sex. The feel of what she writes has the ring of truth and don't see it as some elaborate deception.
2. Maybe at times they had some disagreements. Who does not though?
3. I don't get it either.
4. Amanda at least seemed alright financially.

You are throwing four different motivations at Amanda and her lawyers have to defend from all four. You can use so much innuendo that simply cannot be defended from.

 

[Kaosium]

Huh? Sollecito clearly had NO trouble accepting it: that's why he felt the need to explain it , presumably.

What you and those you consider 'insightful' are missing is that an innocent Raffaele would also have need of explaining to himself and others how Meredith Kercher's DNA could have been on the knife. He could think of only one incident that might have caused it, a time when cooking when he brushed Meredith with a knife and with Tizano having told him in the previous diary entry that the knife may have been taken to the cottage by Amanda for use cooking there it became the only possibility he could think of: he 'must' have had that knife in hand instead. Being as the knife was a common cooking knife that could be found in just about any kitchen in Italy and wasn't even his he'd have no reason to recognize it. He also wrote this in a letter to his family that he started using as a daybook of sorts and never tried to deceive police or courts with it. It wouldn't even have become known had not police illicitly seized his diary and then leaked the contents without authorization.


On the other hand Stefanoni's lies were to the court. There's no 'innocent interpretation' of them, she deliberately tried to deceive the court, she tried to hide the evidence of her malfeasance and has managed to conceal the majority of it to this day.

On contamination in particular here is Massei on her testimony before his court:

With respect to laboratory contamination, she stated that she was not in possession of any data referring to such contamination, and emphasised that if all procedures recommended for good laboratory procedure are applied, this would have cancelled out [i.e. prevented] the occurrence of contamination. She also explained that in performing the various analyses on the biological traces in question, there was no anomaly found which could have caused such a [231] contamination, and she gave evidence of the presence of a whole series of checks [controls], precautions and procedures, intended so as to eliminate this risk.

She is outright lying about there being 'no anomaly found' which you can see here. The bra clasp itself had numerous alleles that she tried to hide the existence of, which you can see on this chart here which was generated from reading these electropherograms. Very simply the first column in the first link shows the alleles that Stefanoni reported, the second the actual number of alleles found above the 50 RFU threshold, and the third the number of ones she 'missed.' The other two links show those alleles on the electropherogram, all of which are larger than the grand majority of the alleles found on the kitchen knife where only a handful exceeded 50 RFUs.

There's lots more evidence of Stefanoni's lies and malfeasance, which is why in the end this case can end only one way. The ones like yourself who think contamination a rare event need to realize that with low template DNA analysis that's not the case at all, it's inevitable, even Dr. Balding agrees with that. Here's something that you, Bolint and Sherlock (amongst others) need to take into account, specifically this but the entire page should also be read. Perhaps then you and the others will be able to understand why top scientists in this field like Drs. Gill and Budowle disagree with your assessment of the likelihood of contamination and the reliability of this evidence:

3.9 Limitations of LCN Typing

Some of the differences of LCN typing compared to conventional STR typing can affect its utility (Gill P., 2001; Budowle B. et al., 2009).

Due to the small quantities of DNA contained in LCN samples and the extreme sensitivity of the method (due essentially to the “optimization” of the PCR and capillary electrophoresis protocol) levels of “background” DNA as well as DNA from casual contact may be detected; thus profiles possibly emerging from these analyses may not relate to the specific case being examined.

In addition, Budowle B. et al. (2009) assert the need to inform the International Scientific Community of the limitations and problems associated with LCN techniques, so that all those involved in a specific investigative or legal case are aware of the risks and limitations which can affect the results of the investigations. Publicizing the potential of the application of LCN typing without describing its limitations is not a responsible role for the forensic geneticist to take.

In this regard, the essential aspects to remember are the following:

1. LCN typing is not a reproducible technique, and this limitation must always be well-emphasized in the reports;

2. contamination from handling is possible, and this possibility must always be considered;

3. a concentrated sample can provide better results in an analysis than replicates which use allele redundancy for interpretation;

4. the number and type of controls used needs to be clearly defined, and to these should be attributed a quantitative or qualitative reliability;

5. to date, interpretation guidelines have not been well-defined, and those which exist only relate to samples from a single source; mixture interpretation has not yet been validated;

6. contamination or allele drop-in may have different sources;

7. due to the increased sensitivity of the method, secondary transfer cannot be excluded as a possible explanation for the results obtained from LCN typing;

8. STR kits, reagents and other materials may not have been subjected to effective quality controls to detect possible contamination from extraneous DNA;

9. statistical interpretations and supporting data for the calculation of probabilities need to be better defined and developed to address the uncertainty associated with LCN typing;

10. as the analysis provides results from very small samples, the material origin of the DNA cannot, to date, be inferred.'

 

[Kaosium]

Huh? Sollecito clearly had NO trouble accepting it: that's why he felt the need to explain it , presumably.

Why don't you realize that an innocent Raffaele would also need to explain it? He's not the only one who (initially at least) dismissed the idea that it could be contamination or fraud, aren't you and others doing the same?

On the other hand now that there's copious evidence of both contamination and fraud (Stefanoni's lies which are documented, proven and germane) some still fail to accept the likelihood! All that goes to show is Raffaele is smarter and more insightful than those people, which would figure considering his educational accomplishments that dwarf that vast majority of his detractors.

 

[Bill Williams]

Why don't you realize that an innocent Raffaele would also need to explain it? He's not the only one who (initially at least) dismissed the idea that it could be contamination or fraud, aren't you and others doing the same?

On the other hand now that there's copious evidence of both contamination and fraud (Stefanoni's lies which are documented, proven and germane) some still fail to accept the likelihood! All that goes to show is Raffaele is smarter and more insightful than those people, which would figure considering his educational accomplishments that dwarf that vast majority of his detractors.

It is arguable that since March 2013, this whole thing has been about shielding Mignini/Stefanoni and saving Perugian law enforcement from embarrassment/criminal charges.

Arguable at least. I still canot get over it - that even with a letter from the Kerchers requesting that all testing be done, that the Florence court only allowed one - a study of Raffaele's fingernails.

 

[Strozzi]

Sollecito was in jail when he made those remarks and never thought that the police would manufacture evidence.

You need to read his book. He has tremendous trouble with now accepting what the police back then told him.... with no ability on his part to refute it at the time.... because he was in jail.

The cops also could pick and choose what they leaked. Case in point is the "I was there," comment Knox said to her mother, secretly recorded then leaked with the wrong interpretation attached to it.

Yet you repeat Raffeale's thing devoid of context. Good for you.[/QUOTE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What ARE you talking about? The man delivered a fabricated story as to how Meredith's DNA got on his knife and you don't think this means he accepts her DNA was on his knife, for crying out loud? Jesus wept. Bad for you, I'm afraid.

Supercal, you invoke an authority figure who has not evaluated the evidence as if that gives credence to your opinion.

 

[Strozzi]

That's a lot of "shoulds" in one post. Maybe you should go over to Italy immediately , get on your high horse and tell them about it. I can imagine their reaction.

In the meantime and in the real world contamination has not been shown to have occurred to the satisfaction of the Italian courts. Period.

The two little god-awful creeps are going down, and not a moment too soon.

Italian courts are not the only courts that don't recognize contamination. North Korean courts don't recognize contamination either.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
This is what the Italian courts have failed to understand, as, apparently, have you. The route of contamination is speculation, but the fact of it is indisputably demonstrated by the the presence of that DNA of an unknown male.

The above statement flies in the face the "axiom #1" of DNA forensic analysis as expressed by Chris Halkides: it is impossible to deduce a date of the DNA deposit (alleles, fragments, etc.) from the presence of the DNA material itself.

Contamination (Van Oorschot et alt definition) is an event, not just a 'fact'; but a kind of fact defined by a date.

So contamination is defined by a date, it can never be deduced from a finding of DNA material; a finding, by its definition (axiom #1), itself never contains information about the date when the material was deposited.

Moreover, the courts did not rule just about path of contamination or "contamination" in general. What they actually said is that "contamination" is not relevant as long as defined as something totaly generic, including any possible contaminating agent. In other words, "contamination" as a general concept doesn't matter at all as for probative purposes and it is irrelevant; what matters is only if contamination is specific: if it is from that contaminating agent (Sollecito's DNA, not others'). Contamination from generic agents (from othrs) is irrelevant. This is what the "path" matters, because it connects a posssible contamination event with one specific contaminating agent.

 

[kwill]

Contamination (Van Oorschot et alt definition) is an event, not just a 'fact'; but a kind of fact defined by a date.

So contamination is defined by a date, it can never be deduced from a finding of DNA material; a finding, by its definition (axiom #1), itself never contains information about the date when the material was deposited.

Let me understand . . . your contention is that the clasp is not evidence against Raffaele, because the fact of his DNA on the clasp comes with no date?

Or, are you saying that you have some other evidence that places him at the murder, and so you are inclined to dismiss the need for a date connected to his DNA?

 

[js202]

So contamination is defined by a date, it can never be deduced from a finding of DNA material; a finding, by its definition (axiom #1), itself never contains information about the date when the material was deposited.

This would indeed be axiomatic, if not for the fact that it is nonsensical gibberish, the second half of which apparently deconstructs the first. Go ahead and quote Van Oorschot, Peter Gill, any DNA expert *whomsoever*, that makes the claim that DNA contamination can be categorically dated, and that, otherwise, it is not contamination. (If this is, in fact, what on earth you are claiming.)

 

[Bill Williams]

The above statement flies in the face the "axiom #1" of DNA forensic analysis as expressed by Chris Halkides: it is impossible to deduce a date of the DNA deposit (alleles, fragments, etc.) from the presence of the DNA material itself.

Contamination (Van Oorschot et alt definition) is an event, not just a 'fact'; but a kind of fact defined by a date.

So contamination is defined by a date, it can never be deduced from a finding of DNA material; a finding, by its definition (axiom #1), itself never contains information about the date when the material was deposited.

Moreover, the courts did not rule just about path of contamination or "contamination" in general. What they actually said is that "contamination" is not relevant as long as defined as something totaly generic, including any possible contaminating agent. In other words, "contamination" as a general concept doesn't matter at all as for probative purposes and it is irrelevant; what matters is only if contamination is specific: if it is from that contaminating agent (Sollecito's DNA, not others'). Contamination from generic agents (from othrs) is irrelevant. This is what the "path" matters, because it connects a posssible contamination event with one specific contaminating agent.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Machiavelli.... is Wladimiro De Nunzio a criminal?

 

[Kaosium]

Let me understand . . . your contention is that the clasp is not evidence against Raffaele, because the fact of his DNA on the clasp comes with no date?

Or, are you saying that you have some other evidence that places him at the murder, and so you are inclined to dismiss the need for a date connected to his DNA?

Contamination has been defined by some as any transfer that takes place after the event in question. Thus for a murder it would be after the person was killed and as a result of something unrelated to it such as people or things touching the item etc. In that paradigm anything before the event (and unrelated) would be considered innocent transfer. Another definition just combines the two concepts, thus anything unrelated to the event would be considered contamination.

 

[js202]

Contamination has been defined by some as any transfer that takes place after the event in question. Thus for a murder it would be after the person was killed and as a result of something unrelated to it such as people or things touching the item etc. In that paradigm anything before the event (and related) would be considered innocent transfer. Another definition just combines the two concepts, thus anything unrelated to the event would be considered contamination.

This, of course, does not preclude DNA professionals from being unable to time-stamp contamination that is unassailably such. Nor does it render uncontaminated that which has been contaminated.