Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Is that a publication in the peer-reviewed literature, or is it a presentation at a conference?

It is a publication, that was subsequently issued in the Forensic Science International Genetics" Supplement Series Sep. 2011

You haven't put forward anything resembling a convincing case that she is anything other than a bachelor's level technician with some experience beyond that

.

I have given crushing evidence pointing to that she is a credited Molecular Biologist and obviously has a PhD (unless you refuse to take my word that she had worked 8 years as an assistent professor at the University in Naples, or if you decide to believe that bachelor graduates are normally hired by the university of Naples as assistent professors, or that they are normally hired by the Scientific Police as chief executive biologists in their laboratory). Only someone who is unreasonable and biased beyond recovery would assume that a person having Stefanoni's posts, references and publications has titles at a "bachelor's level".
I also have titles of other few Stefanoni's publications.
The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge what is glaring obvious, so great is your bias and your need to make information fit to your theories.

 

[acbytesla]

Actually, all what we wonder is why she doesn't make her her ECHR submission public, like she did with other submissions from her ongoing trial.

But maybe we all know why, don't we

I think I do. So morons don't twist the facts like you do constantly.

 

[Strozzi]

Anyone can be called to testify as an expert witness, even people without a college degree. "Expert" only indicate the status of a witness in a trial.

But Stefanoni is not just an "expert"; she is a chief executive at the Genetics laboratory of the Polizia Scientifica and belongs to the staff a Molecular Biologist.

Machiavelli, how do you reconcile her expertise as a forensic scientist and leader of the Genetics Laboratory with 1) her leadership of forensic evidence collection efforts in this case, 2) her personal evidence collection techniques as recorded in the videos, and 3) her analysis of evidence in her lab? Do you see no issues/problems with any of it?

 

[Desert Fox]

You are the one that is ignoring statistics, not me. You are using the exception to prove guilt. Which I find mystifying. If there is a 90 percent chance based on gastric emptying that Meredith died before 9:30 and this TOD is also confirmed in Rudy's first statement, why would you or anyone go searching for another TOD? Particularly when the concept of jurisprudence even in a ass backwards country like Italy is that the defendant is to be given the benefit of the doubt?

I don't get it. Your argument is incredibly dishonest,

The relatively early time of death also is supported by the fact that she did not try to call her mother again and that she does not seem to have settled for the evening. If the Italian police had not destroyed her hard drive, might be able to see if she had turned on her laptop.

 

[Desert Fox]

Machiavelli, how do you reconcile her expertise as a forensic scientist and leader of the Genetics Laboratory with 1) her leadership of forensic evidence collection efforts in this case, 2) her personal evidence collection techniques as recorded in the videos, and 3) her analysis of evidence in her lab? Do you see no issues/problems with any of it?

What was seen in the video goes directly against the forensic textbook I have.
The same with reporting the luminol as evidence while it failed a second presumptive (let alone a confirmatory)

 

[Machiavelli]

You are the one that is ignoring statistics, not me. You are using the exception to prove guilt. Which I find mystifying. If there is a 90 percent chance based on gastric emptying that Meredith died before 9:30 and this TOD is also confirmed in Rudy's first statement, why would you or anyone go searching for another TOD? Particularly when the concept of jurisprudence even in a ass backwards country like Italy is that the defendant is to be given the benefit of the doubt?

I don't get it. Your argument is incredibly dishonest,

But it's just false in the first place. There is nothing such as "90 percent probabilities" that she died "before 9:30". Those figures are arbitrary. They do not fit the actual information; if you consider the actual information they make no sense, the whole reasoning crumbles.
The testimonies place the time of last meal in in the best interpretation at least more than 2 hours earlier than 9:30, but actually towards 3 hours earlier. Based on these figures, which are the *actual* data, it just makes no sense to locate the ToD "earlier than 9.30". The limit of 9:30 becomes totally arbitrary. And the previous, ground assumption of an "average" gastric emptying time, on which the reasoning is founded, also becomes disproven.

The rational process to follow instead, is that if you promptly accept 90 minutes delay as a "most probable" timing, it means that you have already chosen a peculiar scenario (not the "average" one), a scenario in which you must also be ready to accept 100 minutes as still a relatively probable timing. If you accept "90 minutes" as "most probable", then you will have to consider "100 minutes" as "close to most probable".

In this case the actual choice that you make is to consider a scenario where an emptying delay between 120-180 minutes is "probable", unless the testimonies are contradicted and not completely twisted. You already streched figures to their extremes even if you consider just 90 minutes, and you streched the testimony information. So this scenario is not an average scenario; it's an extreme scenario in statistics by its nature. It makes no longer sense to try to use the average rule in order to fit this peculiar occurrence in it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It is a publication, that was subsequently issued in the Forensic Science International Genetics" Supplement Series Sep. 2011

"Abstract
In recent years considerable progress in the field of forensic science (latent prints, ballistics and biology) have occurred, causing the reopening investigation of old unsolved murders, called “Cold Cases”, especially when findings can still be analyzed and/or re-analyzed taken into account new technologies and new scientific methodologies.

The UDI working group (Unsolved Crimes Unit) of the Italian National Police, which collects scientific and technical expertise and investigators, deals to assess which unresolved cases could be selected in relation to new investigative hypotheses or/and in the presence of not analyzed samples.

During last two years about 30 cases, occurred between 1985 and 2005, were selected.

In particular, in eight cases the DNA analysis led to the identification of one or more genetic profiles that are considered of great interest from the investigative point of view, allowing the identification of the murderers in three different cases."

There is nothing in the abstract of this article that suggests new methodology relating to DNA forensics, and it is only two pages long. If that is all there is to this article, then it is dwarfed by, for example, Professor Hampikian's scholastic output.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I have given crushing evidence pointing to that she is a credited Molecular Biologist and obviously has a PhD (unless you refuse to take my word that she had worked 8 years as an assistent professor at the University in Naples,

Then you should have no trouble producing a resume or CV of some sort that backs up your claim.

 

[kwill]

Try this simple piece of reasoning. If you are ready to accept "90" as the most likely figure, and you accept a 10% an expected error, in order to be consistent you should not - at the same time - say that "100" would be an unacceptable figure, given that it is only about 10% distant from what you accepted as the "most likely" figure.

Try this simple piece of reasoning.

Meredith ate dinner.
Meredith's dinner was still in her stomach when she died.
Meredith had no known digestive problems.

With me so far?

What this means is simple: the further you get away from the time she ate, the less likely it is that she was still alive. That's what all of the research on gastric emptying shows.

I'll say it another way: the statistical likelihood of her being alive grows smaller and smaller as the clock moves away from her last meal.

The statement "gastric emptying" is a "fairly precise" sceince gets very objectionable when the person declaring it tries to apply "science" while ignoring some elementary principles of statistics.

I see people invoking statistic figures from science about gastric emptying, in order to "accomodate extremes" (according to them). But then what they actually do is to choose a number of values which are in fact extreme figures, at the extreme of average probability and forcing the extreme limits of the given information, as their starting point, and they consider these as the "most likely" figures.

But if these are the "most likely" figures, they also must be at the center of a possible range of tolerance. And the whole previous assumption is undermined; the previous paradigm should be put in discussion, and the new paradigm should be: the given information is we have some values that are surely abnormal or unusual, we have this information for sure (which is more information than what we have in the average generic circumstance), so we have these unfrequent figures for sure, independently from how freqently they occur in the average study; the reasoning so is to be set around the actual information, not on the generic studies and absolute average.

The highlighted bit above is the only part of it that makes any sense. Set the reasoning around the actual information, which consists of items 1, 2, and 3 above. Then consider that the studies all say the same thing: the further you get from the time of eating, the less likely it is that there is a full stomach and an empty duodenum.

This matters because, as you know very well, 9 pm -- the last time when we're sure Meredith still breathed -- was already late in terms of her lack of beginning to digest a meal that happened 2 hours earlier. And every moment after 9 pm, it becomes more and more unlikely that she was still alive.

 

[moije2]

It is a publication, that was subsequently issued in the Forensic Science International Genetics" Supplement Series Sep. 2011

.

I have given crushing evidence pointing to that she is a credited Molecular Biologist and obviously has a PhD (unless you refuse to take my word that she had worked 8 years as an assistent professor at the University in Naples, or if you decide to believe that bachelor graduates are normally hired by the university of Naples as assistent professors, or that they are normally hired by the Scientific Police as chief executive biologists in their laboratory). Only someone who is unreasonable and biased beyond recovery would assume that a person having Stefanoni's posts, references and publications has titles at a "bachelor's level".
I also have titles of other few Stefanoni's publications.
The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge what is glaring obvious, so great is your bias and your need to make information fit to your theories.

In the past there has been much discussion of the issue of Stefanoni's credentials. It would be nice to get this answered once and for all so that it could be out there. It would seem like an easy thing to look up - but my initial google searches don't provide the answer.

Machiavelli you did not respond to my more recent comment in our exchange about Stefanoni yesterday. The reasons for her storing the bra clasp, and the assured destruction of that evidence by her method, without the order for destruction as you say is required, is an enigma at best. This discussion of her qualifications, with the high training and role that your described only amplifies the reasons to question her abilities. If she is a holder of a doctorate in some biological or other science, one would think she would know how to properly store evidence that she is charged with collecting and analyzing. Again, surely the skill and knowledge to store the bra clasp are way way less than required to do DNA analysis.

With that said, what <logical> explanation can explain her seeming intentional destruction of the bra clasp evidence?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA from skin (Vecchiotti)

Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014 Jul;11:137-43. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.03.005. Epub 2014 Mar 21.
DNA fingerprinting secondary transfer from different skin areas: Morphological and genetic studies.
Zoppis S1, Muciaccia B2, D'Alessio A3, Ziparo E2, Vecchiotti C1, Filippini A4.
Author information

"Abstract
The correct identification of the biological samples under analysis is crucial in forensic investigation in that it represents the pivotal issue attesting that the resulting genetic profiles are fully reliable in terms of weight of the evidence. The study reported herein shows that "touch DNA" secondary transfer is indeed possible from person to person and, in turn, from person to object depending on the specific sebaceous or non-sebaceous skin area previously touched. In addition, we demonstrate the presence of fragmented single stranded DNA specifically immunodetected in the vast majority of cells forming the sebaceous gland but not in the epidermis layers, strongly indicating that sebaceous fluid represents an important vector responsible for DNA transfer. In view of our results, forensic investigations need to take into account that the propensity to leave behind genetic material through contact could depend from the individual ability to shed sebaceous fluid on the skin surface."

This publication represents actual research into DNA profiling.

 

[Diocletus]

Hope I'm not coming across as a dunce, but what is the Grand Council, what is Bouyld, and do we have an idea when might these things actually occur?

Actually, it's grand chamber. The grand chamber is the highest configuration of the ecthr. In bouyid, a lower panel of the court held basically that the cops are allowed to slap witnesses, and there was a lot of criticism of the decision from human right groups. The grand chamber granted review of that decision, argument to occur this month, and it seems likely that they will say that the cops are not allowed to slap interogees. Even perugian cops.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then you should have no trouble producing a resume or CV of some sort that backs up your claim.

But I have no interst in spending my time doing such research. As a colleague, I mean a person of the same profession, and a person who spoke publicly about her professional work, it should be normal for you to send an e-mail to Stefanoni yourself, asking her for her credentials, rather than me, if you feel the need to know something more about her CV. You should ask her instead of asking me if you have doubts.
In fact you don't seem to have big doubts: you stated you think she must have nothing more than a bachelor's degree without feeling the need to seek confirmation for your assumption, despite the fact that Stefanoni authors international publications, occupies posts, takes part to international congresses and has years of academic research experience, all things pointing in the opposite direction.

 

[Diocletus]

But I have no interst in spending my time doing such research. As a colleague, I mean a person of the same profession, and a person who spoke publicly about her professional work, it should be normal for you to send an e-mail to Stefanoni yourself, asking her for her credentials, rather than me, if you feel the need to know something more about her CV. You should ask her instead of asking me if you have doubts.
In fact you don't seem to have big doubts: you stated you think she must have nothing more than a bachelor's degree without feeling the need to seek confirmation for your assumption, despite the fact that Stefanoni authors international publications, occupies posts, takes part to international congresses and has years of academic research experience, all things pointing in the opposite direction.

I know what she doesn't have a PhD in: operating a clean lab. She's a slob.

 

[Diocletus]

Actually, all what we wonder is why she doesn't make her her ECHR submission public, like she did with other submissions from her ongoing trial.

But maybe we all know why, don't we

Yes, we do. It's because Italians are crybabies.

 

[Desert Fox]

But I have no interst in spending my time doing such research. As a colleague, I mean a person of the same profession, and a person who spoke publicly about her professional work, it should be normal for you to send an e-mail to Stefanoni yourself, asking her for her credentials, rather than me, if you feel the need to know something more about her CV. You should ask her instead of asking me if you have doubts.
In fact you don't seem to have big doubts: you stated you think she must have nothing more than a bachelor's degree without feeling the need to seek confirmation for your assumption, despite the fact that Stefanoni authors international publications, occupies posts, takes part to international congresses and has years of academic research experience, all things pointing in the opposite direction.

I am curious, if she is properly certified and has a PhD, why does she seem to fail the basic procedures laid of for evidence collection in my forensics tex book?

 

[acbytesla]

But it's just false in the first place. There is nothing such as "90 percent probabilities" that she died "before 9:30". Those figures are arbitrary. They do not fit the actual information; if you consider the actual information they make no sense, the whole reasoning crumbles.
The testimonies place the time of last meal in in the best interpretation at least more than 2 hours earlier than 9:30, but actually towards 3 hours earlier. Based on these figures, which are the *actual* data, it just makes no sense to locate the ToD "earlier than 9.30". The limit of 9:30 becomes totally arbitrary. And the previous, ground assumption of an "average" gastric emptying time, on which the reasoning is founded, also becomes disproven.

The rational process to follow instead, is that if you promptly accept 90 minutes delay as a "most probable" timing, it means that you have already chosen a peculiar scenario (not the "average" one), a scenario in which you must also be ready to accept 100 minutes as still a relatively probable timing. If you accept "90 minutes" as "most probable", then you will have to consider "100 minutes" as "close to most probable".

In this case the actual choice that you make is to consider a scenario where an emptying delay between 120-180 minutes is "probable", unless the testimonies are contradicted and not completely twisted. You already streched figures to their extremes even if you consider just 90 minutes, and you streched the testimony information. So this scenario is not an average scenario; it's an extreme scenario in statistics by its nature. It makes no longer sense to try to use the average rule in order to fit this peculiar occurrence in it.

huh??

The fact is that Meredith's meal had not moved out of her stomach and she was well past the time for gastric emptying if Sophie and Robyn were correct. But they probably weren't right. So, unless Meredith's had some very severe digestive problems the TOD HAD to be almost as soon as she arrived at the apartment. What I don't see you acknowledging is that Rudy's OWN STATEMENT, confirms this TOD. And while Rudy certainly lied about a great many things, there is no reason for Rudy to lie about this detail.

Instead, you fix the TOD out of thin air.

 

[whoanellie]

But the quote says nothing of the sort that you mean.
I have no direct documentation (I never investigated to find it) but I have documentation that Stefanoni had worked eight years at the University of Naples within research projects which in Italy are always bond to PhDs, and I also know that she is the author of very successfull publications. I make the reasonable inference that she has a PhD, because any person who worked as an assistent professor for eight years in Italy would have a PhD.

What makes a publication "very successful"?

 

[js202]

In fact you don't seem to have big doubts: you stated you think she must have nothing more than a bachelor's degree without feeling the need to seek confirmation for your assumption, despite the fact that Stefanoni authors international publications, occupies posts, takes part to international congresses and has years of academic research experience, all things pointing in the opposite direction.

And yet her work in the Kercher case was so sloppy and bad that even an educated layperson can be made to see and understand this. Curious.

Either accreditation and attendance at various congresses comes rather too easy in Italy - and only a quick glance at Vecchiotti's work and experience calls this into question - or you, and those of your ilk, exaggerate Patrizia Stefanoni's qualifications for your own highly biased purposes.

 

[Samson]

But it's just false in the first place. There is nothing such as "90 percent probabilities" that she died "before 9:30". Those figures are arbitrary. They do not fit the actual information; if you consider the actual information they make no sense, the whole reasoning crumbles.
The testimonies place the time of last meal in in the best interpretation at least more than 2 hours earlier than 9:30, but actually towards 3 hours earlier. Based on these figures, which are the *actual* data, it just makes no sense to locate the ToD "earlier than 9.30". The limit of 9:30 becomes totally arbitrary. And the previous, ground assumption of an "average" gastric emptying time, on which the reasoning is founded, also becomes disproven.

The rational process to follow instead, is that if you promptly accept 90 minutes delay as a "most probable" timing, it means that you have already chosen a peculiar scenario (not the "average" one), a scenario in which you must also be ready to accept 100 minutes as still a relatively probable timing. If you accept "90 minutes" as "most probable", then you will have to consider "100 minutes" as "close to most probable".

In this case the actual choice that you make is to consider a scenario where an emptying delay between 120-180 minutes is "probable", unless the testimonies are contradicted and not completely twisted. You already streched figures to their extremes even if you consider just 90 minutes, and you streched the testimony information. So this scenario is not an average scenario; it's an extreme scenario in statistics by its nature. It makes no longer sense to try to use the average rule in order to fit this peculiar occurrence in it.

Time of stress/death is the same time. Whether she was killed instantly, makes no difference. The terror of finding Rudy uninvited in her apartment will have ceased digestion.
You are suggesting all discussion is ceased because 6 30pm to 9pm is outside the parameters relating to a full stomach, but I made the logical suggestion that she ate at 7 30pm, attending to the pizza at this time.
Her friends tod the court what she ate, and Lalli's autopsy specifies the ingredients described by the friends. Therefore the inescapable conclusion is he was looking at the partially digested meal they cooked and she ate.

How do you go from this hard evidence to a time of stress/death beyond 9pm? Actually you do it by ignoring medical science, because you know it is too disturbing to contemplate, that you are wrong.

I would like to remind you that you have conceded the dna may be unsound, so the impossibility of Raffaele touching the bra hook has an explanation founded in accidental or deliberate contamination of the hook or the machine it was tested in.

ETA I see Planagale said stress does not delay digestion, I have not had much luck on this subject, but it is certainly relevant.