Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

Don't be ridiculous. That would be like storing samples in the fridge or forgetting whethef the lamp was really evidence and then later saying, '**** it, we'll use it anyway'. As if that would really happen.

Or stomping around a bloody crime scene and then coming back a month later to find your own footprints.

 

[Magister]

I would have thought that Giacomo would have only given the front door key to Meredith.
How many downstairs keys were found upstairs?
If a full set then it suggests the boys' keys were given to the police who left them upstairs.

 

[Numbers]

I would have thought that Giacomo would have only given the front door key to Meredith.
How many downstairs keys were found upstairs?
If a full set then it suggests the boys' keys were given to the police who left them upstairs.

But wasn't Giacomo S's door locked when the police entered downstairs on Nov. 2? Were the pot plants in his room? Did Meredith need a key to get into his room and tend the pot plants? How often would they need to be watered or whatever she needed to do?

 

[Magister]

But wasn't Giacomo S's door locked when the police entered downstairs on Nov. 2? Were the pot plants in his room? Did Meredith need a key to get into his room and tend the pot plants? How often would they need to be watered or whatever she needed to do?

Yes Giacomo's room was locked. The police broke down his door.
The plants were in a small room off one of the bathrooms.

 

[Machiavelli]

Welcome back, Machiavelli. I see your memory has failed you (again!). Here is where Massei renders Stefanoni on this point:

I see that someone here has thoughtfully archived the actual testimony Massei paraphrased above:

Now if you read the rest of that page you'll see that in batch 4, well B11 showed a count of 34.30, meaning on the 34th cycle it registered human DNA as opposed to going 50 cycles without finding any which is what is supposed to happen, being as it's a negative control and there should be no DNA in it at all. In addition there were over a hundred samples with human DNA where the results were withheld, some of those quite likely because they'd show the copious contamination in that lab which would show up employing LT/LCN protocols. (...)

Let's stop here first, and answer this point alone to avoid too long posts.

Well, no, no no. I think you develop your own concept of “contamination issue”, and probably that's the problem.
It would be better instead to look at what Stefanoni says altogether; and it’s better to use the information for building arguments that make sense. Stefanoni says some other, very different things, where she explains how negative controls work, she explains that the possibility of contamination in reagents - whether you see it as "contamination" by a whole profile or instead by single drop-in allele - in negative controls, is something that can always happen. This kind of contamination happens, the possibility of contamination is something “normal”, therefore the negative controls are part of the work.

Let's quote Stefanoni (Oct. 4. 2008). Sorry, I must quote he testimony in Italian:

...Non condivido la metodologia, noi i controlli negativi li utilizziamo nella nostra pratica di laboratorio ma hanno un altro significato, li utilizziamo per esempio in qualunque fase di lavorazione dall'estrazione del campione biologico fino all'analisi elettroforetica perché? Perché in quel caso a noi interessano due cose: una vedere la bontà dell'esecuzione da parte dell'operatore sulle metodiche che prevengono un possibile inquinamento e quindi un possibile trasferimento di proprio D.N.A. dell'operatore al reperto, perché anche questo è possibile, inavvertitamente fare, nonostante tutte le precauzioni, e a tal scopo ogni operatore infatti è tipizzato cioè si conosce il suo profilo genetico in modo che se, come spesso accade, i profili genetici sono di persone ignote noi sicuramente possiamo escludere che quel profilo genetico ignoto non sia magari di un operatore tecnico o di un'altra qualunque persona che sia venuta a contatto con il campione stesso. Poi un altro controllo che noi mettiamo come negativo, che noi chiamiamo “bianco”, è un controllo che serve a verificare che praticamente, come dire, i reagenti utilizzati - perché si utilizzano reagenti chimici in tutte le fasi di lavorazione naturalmente, perché è un processo chimico sia l'estrazione che l'analisi del D.N.A. - non abbia esso stesso delle contaminazioni accidentali dovute a precedenti operazioni di prelievo, per esempio di una aliquota, perché i reagenti ovviamente non sono monodose, i reagenti devono essere presi ogni volta dall'operatore da una provetta, un tubino perché si usano in piccolissime quantità nell'ordine dei micro litri che ! sono un milionesimo di litro quindi una cosa assolutamente molto piccola per cui quella provetta viene utilizzata più volte, per cui il nostro controllo negativo, per esempio nella fase di amplificazione, è quella di osservare avendo messo tutti i reattivi chimici tranne il D.N.A., non mettiamo nessun tipo di D.N.A., che quel campione una volta analizzato non dà nessun segnale di D.N.A. ovviamente(...)

I don’t know what “contamination issue” would mean according to you (and I don’t think the defence lawyer has a precise, technical meaning in mind neither), but what I understand from Stefanoni’s explanation, is two things: first, that the contamination of a testing tube with an extra-profile (from a technician for example) or with the drop-in from an “aliquota” (a modicum, a small fraction) of the reagent that was used in the previous test with the same test tube, is to be considered relatively “normal” possibility (not something that you don’t meet for seven years). Second, as an implication of this, the meaning I understand she gives to a concept like “contamination issue”, is that you can deduce from what she explain, to say a DNA finding in the laboratory was due to “laboratory contamination” (there is an issue) is something that does not equate to mere “presence of an allele peak in a negative control”. You can well infer from what she says that, in order to say “this profile was contamination”, you need to have in your negative control something that yields a positive result that is significant, and possibly about the profile itself; it means that the profile extracted from the sample analysis (or most of it) is found in the negative control as well, so that you may conclude: the DNA did not come from the sample, it is found everywhere in controls so the reason must have been the reagent that was not “clean”.

I don’t think anything like that comes out anywhere in the DNA findings.

I also know that prof. Novelli testified that he analyzed a sequence of 105 tests carried on within a week with the machine that tested the knife, and he found no trace contamination. I also know that nobody, either Vecchiotti or the defences could disprove or dispute Novelli’s statement.

So, what I see is that you are making up technical meanings, creating conditions, which in reality they do not belong to the true technical meaning. You say "in a negative control and there should be no DNA in it at all", and this appears to be just plain false. You use this false premise in order to build a conspiracy theory (at the same time, you delete parts from the meaning of what Stefanoni said). Don’t misunderstand me: by putting this objection to you about the flawed premise, I am not just limiting the focus on considering what Stefanoni says, I am not picking up the corret premise from Stefanoni alone; you could equally deduce the same, more correct premise regarding drop-in alleles in negative controls, by picking quotes from Vecchiotti as she quotes Caragine et al (translation of C-V report, p. 94):

Moreover the experiments done have shown that, despite the scrupulous application of adequate protocols in order to minimize the possible sources of alleles drop-in within the laboratory, anyway we should always expect to observe a few extra alleles in negative controls.

You can see Vecchiotti quotes Caragine, saying - read carefully the wording - one should always expect to find a few extra alleles in negative controls.

Always. This as for Caragine and Vecchiotti seems to agree.

Vecchiotti also pointed out that currently no protocols have been developed in order to how to "count" the drop in alleles to the date in order to assess the quality of negative controls (p. 90):

(…) there has not been a discussion yet about the number of negative controls that should be analyzed in order to verify the randomness of the drop-in phenomenon (…)

So your first assumption, that "there should be no of DNA trace at all", not even a single drop-in allele in a negative control (I believe actually B11 is a negative sample rather than a negative control but it makes no big difference), is simply false. The ngative controls should have a good quality, but you should always expect to find a few drop in alleles (this is what I can read in reports and testimonies).

Last thing, I point out that there are no DNA profiles that were "withheld". Not even one. All documentation about all results that was requested - and btw all of what was requested was requested anyway late according to what the procedure code provides for - was all given. What was not given is what had just never been requested, certainly not within the timings and fashion in which it was offered according to the procedure code.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes, I believe that's what Tesla meant and that is what is true.

But what Mach said about testing twice might refer to the suppressed and to the provided results for the bra clasp as two separate tests.

Or he may have thinking of the autosomic and y-str tests on the bra clasp or that Stefanoni performed two electrophoretic runs of the same amplification on the knife blade. Neither actually engages Tesla's point however.

 

[Numbers]

Let's stop here first, and answer this point alone to avoid too long posts.

Well, no, no no. I think you develop your own concept of “contamination issue”, and probably that's the problem.
It would be better instead to look at what Stefanoni says altogether; and it’s better to use the information for building arguments that make sense. Stefanoni says some other, very different things, where she explains how negative controls work, she explains that the possibility of contamination in reagents - whether you see it as "contamination" by a whole profile or instead by single drop-in allele - in negative controls, is something that can always happen. This kind of contamination happens, the possibility of contamination is something “normal”, therefore the negative controls are part of the work.
Let's quote Stefanoni (Oct. 4. 2008). Sorry, I must quote he testimony in Italian:



I don’t know what “contamination issue” would mean according to you (and I don’t think the defence lawyer has a precise, technical meaning in mind neither), but what I understand from Stefanoni’s explanation, is two things: first, that the contamination of a testing tube with an extra-profile (from a technician for example) or with the drop-in from an “aliquota” (a modicum, a small fraction) of the reagent that was used in the previous test with the same test tube, is to be considered relatively “normal” possibility (not something that you don’t meet for seven years). Second, as an implication of this, the meaning I understand she gives to a concept like “contamination issue”, is that you can deduce from what she explain, to say a DNA finding in the laboratory was due to “laboratory contamination” (there is an issue) is something that does not equate to mere “presence of an allele peak in a negative control”. You can well infer from what she says that, in order to say “this profile was contamination”, you need to have in your negative control something that yields a positive result that is significant, and possibly about the profile itself; it means that the profile extracted from the sample analysis (or most of it) is found in the negative control as well, so that you may conclude: the DNA did not come from the sample, it is found everywhere in controls so the reason must have been the reagent that was not “clean”.

I don’t think anything like that comes out anywhere in the DNA findings.

I also know that prof. Novelli testified that he analyzed a sequence of 105 tests carried on within a week with the machine that tested the knife, and he found no trace contamination. I also know that nobody, either Vecchiotti or the defences could disprove or dispute Novelli’s statement.

So, what I see is that you are making up technical meanings, creating conditions, which in reality they do not belong to the true technical meaning. You say "in a negative control and there should be no DNA in it at all", and this appears to be just plain false. You use this false premise in order to build a conspiracy theory (at the same time, you delete parts from the meaning of what Stefanoni said). Don’t misunderstand me: by putting this objection to you about the flawed premise, I am not just limiting the focus on considering what Stefanoni says, I am not picking up the corret premise from Stefanoni alone; you could equally deduce the same, more correct premise regarding drop-in alleles in negative controls, by picking quotes from Vecchiotti as she quotes Caragine et al (translation of C-V report, p. 94):



You can see Vecchiotti quotes Caragine, saying - read carefully the wording - one should always expect to find a few extra alleles in negative controls.

Always. This as for Caragine and Vecchiotti seems to agree.

Vecchiotti also pointed out that currently no protocols have been developed in order to how to "count" the drop in alleles to the date in order to assess the quality of negative controls (p. 90):

So your first assumption, that "there should be no of DNA trace at all", not even a single drop-in allele in a negative control (I believe actually B11 is a negative sample rather than a negative control but it makes no big difference), is simply false. The ngative controls should have a good quality, but you should always expect to find a few drop in alleles (this is what I can read in reports and testimonies).

Last thing, I point out that there are no DNA profiles that were "withheld". Not even one. All documentation about all results that was requested - and btw all of what was requested was requested anyway late according to what the procedure code provides for - was all given. What was not given is what had just never been requested, certainly not within the timings and fashion in which it was offered according to the procedure code.

Hi Mach,

Thanks for this information on the meaning of negative (no template) controls in Stefanoni's lab. As I understand, your position is that she considers the appearance of DNA in the negative controls, after the controls go through the replication cycles, as normal, rather than an indication that there is likely a problem with contamination in the DNA testing process.

 

[Diocletus]

Let's stop here first, and answer this point alone to avoid too long posts.

Well, no, no no. I think you develop your own concept of “contamination issue”, and probably that's the problem.
It would be better instead to look at what Stefanoni says altogether; and it’s better to use the information for building arguments that make sense. Stefanoni says some other, very different things, where she explains how negative controls work, she explains that the possibility of contamination in reagents - whether you see it as "contamination" by a whole profile or instead by single drop-in allele - in negative controls, is something that can always happen. This kind of contamination happens, the possibility of contamination is something “normal”, therefore the negative controls are part of the work.

LOL. You think that a Ct=34 comes from an allele drop in? There's more DNA in that negative control than there was in 36b.

 

[Machiavelli]

The second point risen by Kaosium:

As Massei renders it, through quoting Dr Sara Gino, the polizia scientifica did TMB tests on the luminol hits, Stefanoni omitted those from her comprehensive technical report, the RTIGF. As Dr. Gino also notes, when asked in court about the luminol hits Stefanoni claimed they only laid luminol there, which at that time no one could prove differently being as Stefanoni had omitted those results from her report. However when the defense was finally given the work records and other documents it was found that all those luminol hits had been tested with TMB and all were negative outside the one that overlapped where Rudy Guede's real bloody shoeprint had been processed and cleaned by the polizia scientifica six weeks before.

Now, first a tiny collateral point: Massei does not write "in contradiction with" ("in contraddizione con") as for my memory he writes "in contrast with" ("in contrasto con"). Maybe the translator or the defence enhanced a bit the "contrast"; the word contraddizione is a bit stronger than contrasto in my opinion, we may even prefer to talk about how the translator put it instead of how Massei put it. This point of wording was only a side note.

She certainly "laid only luminol there", if you put it literally like that, since TMB is not "laid" on the trace, it is an indirect test.

Now, there is the RTIGF where the TMB test is not indicated, but the argument that Stefanoni lied about the TMB test is an accusation that hinges entirely on the assertion that she explicitly denied having performed further tests on those samples.

But, what did she actually say?
Is it true, what you attribute to Sarah Gino reporting her words? Or is it just a hearsay from Sarah Gino? Or maybe even just your own interpretation of Sarah Gino?

Let's see what Stefanoni said, her actual words in the courtroom since her first hearing, Oct. 4. 2008, when she talked about the luminol tests for the first time:

DOMANDA - Ecco volevo chiederle se a questo proposito era stato accertato trattarsi di macchie di sangue, se si trattava di sangue?
RISPOSTA - Allora non è stato possibile, è presumibilmente sangue perché il test del luminol è un test praticamente orientativo, è un test non specifico per la sostanza ematica ma ovviamente reagisce anche con la sostanza ematica
DOMANDA - Parliamo del pavimento stanza Romanelli quindi quelle macchie, quelle tracce poi analizzate sono state evidenziate con il luminol?
RISPOSTA - Sì, quelle tracce lì, sì.
DOMANDA - All'interno quindi quello è stato fatto in un unico contesto...
/RISPOSTA - Quelle sul pavimento.
DOMANDA - Parliamo proprio all'interno della stanza Romanelli, eh, non sul corridoio?
RISPOSTA - No, no, posso guardare un attimo?
DOMANDA - Sì, certo..
RISPOSTA - Voglio essere precisa ma penso che ... perché devo riferirmi alla descrizione delle tracce. Allora, sì, la 176 quella che nel verbale del sopralluogo è stata denominata come L1.
DOMANDA - Sì, evidenziata mediante tecnica luminol, esatto, e poi c'è anche 177.
RISPOSTA - Sì, 177, 180 e 183, sono le uniche tracce evidenziate con il luminol e repertate che hanno dato un risultato dal punto di vista del profilo genetico.
DOMANDA - Ok! Quindi allora hanno dato risultato D.N.A. Meredith Kercher?
RISPOSTA - Sì, la 176.
DOMANDA - Perfetto! E per quello che riguarda la verifica se si trattasse o meno di sangue?
RISPOSTA - Non è possibile farla perché il luminol, appunto, come dicevo prima è un reattivo chimico che reagisce con varie sostanze non soltanto con il sangue, reagisce con alcuni detergenti dì uso comune...
DOMANDA - Sì, sì , lo sappiamo, abbiamo visto anche nelle osservazioni dei consulenti della Difesa a proposito della...
RISPOSTA - Sì. Ed è stata, diciamo, evidenziata anche mediante delle prove condotte nei nostri laboratori; che una possibile determinazione poi in laboratorio sulla traccia campionata, ed evidenziata al luminol, per determinarne o meno la natura ematica, praticamente è molto rischiosa perché, essendo la traccia di luminol per sua definizione una traccia assolutamente invisibile ad occhio nudo quindi esigua, se fosse una traccia ematica sarebbe comunque una traccia ematica che io evidenzio con il luminol - perché ad occhio non la vedo - quindi è una tal quantità talmente piccola che io, pur potendo analizzare comunque la traccia con un test che mi indichi o meno la natura ematica, io rischierei di avere dei falsi negativi cioè un test ...
DOMANDA - Ho capito, ho capito, mi sta bene!
RISPOSTA - Ok, basta!
DOMANDA - L'ultima domanda è in ordine alla, se lei avendo presieduto e partecipato alle operazioni di sopralluogo questa traccia del luminol per come era stata interpretata nel pavimento della stanza Romanelli Filomena è, se è possibile affermarlo, una traccia che i laboratori dove lei presta la sua attività hanno riferito a impronta di scarpa, piede nudo o qualche cosa che non è possibile determinare?
RISPOSTA - Posso guardare sul verbale di sopralluogo perché a memoria non ricordo.
DOMANDA - No, no, allora ci basta il contenuto del verbale di sopralluogo!

Patrizia Stefanoni says: we have also done a series of tests in our laboratory about the possible blood nature on those luminol samples, then immediately makes a digression to explain: further tests done on luminol traces in order to establish if it's blood are at high-risk of yielding false negatives, since the traces are latent and usually at a too low concentration.

But she says: we have done "a series of tests" on these luminol traces. The prosecutor seems focused on the luminol traces picked from the floor in Filomena's room, but Stefanoni doesn't seem to be making clear distinctions.

She implies immediately after that these "tests", normally, should not be done, because they are at too high risk of yielding false negative results; yet, she says on this specific occasion they did further tests of multiple kind about the blood nature of the luminol traces.

If you read further on, at p. 112, while talking about a possible TMB test on the knife, she mentions again the luminol example and picks again the same concept: as a normal praxis, it's better to not do further tests on latent traces found with luminol, because they are at high risk of being negative, and the sample gets wasted. (we did it; but we shouldn't do it normally).

So the truth is, from her very first hearing as a witness, Stefanoni said she performed further tests (apparently multiple types of further blood tests) on the luminol traces.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi Mach,

Thanks for this information on the meaning of negative (no template) controls in Stefanoni's lab. As I understand, your position is that she considers the appearance of DNA in the negative controls, after the controls go through the replication cycles, as normal, rather than an indication that there is likely a problem with contamination in the DNA testing process.

Not "she" alone; also Caragine and Vecchiotti say the same thing.

 

[Diocletus]

Not "she" alone; also Caragine and Vecchiotti say the same thing.

You do realize that you are trying to explain away contamination during the extraction process by referring to a stochastic phenomena that is specific to the amplification process?

If not, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[carbonjam72]

You don't get to ask a question until your theory hangs together. You may however, make observations that support your theory. Your answer about washing in the shower does not assist. For your theory to work he had to be bleeding from his hands a lot and for a long time but, when upstairs, where he did a lot of manual things that might have required freedom of movement, with a bandage of some kind but downstairs without one.

I have seen CSV showing a trail of blood spots leading down (or up) the stone steps from the upper apartment to the lower. How come they didn't blot those out? How come they did not make the photographs you are now analysing disappear? Evidence was given about cat blood. Just the other day I read a snippet of Stefanoni about how that cat drove them nuts. The defence teams seem to be in on the conspiracy too because, as far as I recall, no part of the defence cases majored on the mysterious happenings downstairs. Were the downstairs occupants quizzed at trial about the state of the place? Did they say clothes had been stolen, for instance?

Another thing, if Rudy was so cool that he had time to check out downstairs (with the keys he dutifully returned to the entrance upstairs?) why didn't he spare a minute to look in Amanda's desk drawer where he would have found 300 euros? Some (I am not among them) think he retrieved the lamp from her room. How long would it take to open and check out a drawer? No time at all. But going downstairs and fumbling about there, leaving spots of blood everywhere to identify himself, would take time and incur more risk.

Don't know where to best jump in but I'll try to here.

I believe there was a relative absence of bloody track between Meredith's bedroom, and the bathroom. Apart from the bath mat.

Rudy could have been trying to delay the discovery of the corpse upstairs, by doing a cursory clean-up with towelss of bloody tracks in the hallway. The half a bare foot track on the bath mat could simply have been an error. If trying to conceal his presence, wouldn't it have been the better choice to not throw out the bath mat, rather than leave it there with the small half foot print in blood? Indeed, Amanda didn't notice it and proceeded to take a shower, right?

Secondly, although its hard to tell how much of the recent posts actually connect to the evidence, its becoming increasingly plausible that something more funky than has been admitted went on downstairs.

By this I mean in particular, the removal of a shower curtain, which seems like a likely tool to wrap up, help conceal while carrying, and dispose of a body. The possible underpants add to the mix of the unexplained potential pieces of evidence.

Rudy behavior downstairs is different from upstairs because he is trying to delay the discovery of the corpse. Taking a shower curtain from upstairs would, be a noticeable disturbance in the flat. WHereas Rudy COULD have known the guys were gone for the holiday weekend.

The human DNA profiles from downstairs have to be handed over, its crazy that that evidence is with held.

Now, as to the possibly missing video from NOV 2.

As I have speculated before, if the police recognized Rudy's MO, because they were using him as an informant, and concealed his possible involvement at the crime scene to protect themselves for allowing him to remain free, THAT would explain an awful lot.

The footage of Zugarini kicking in the door downstairs might be something they had to keep in the video, because it might have been videtaped or photographed by the journalists outside. Whereas the video showing bloodspots downstairs on NOV 2nd, were video'd from inside the house, and could be made to disappear without fear of an independent contradictory record.

Rudy could have left the upstairs crime scene, and gone downstairs for a change of clothes, and to prepare to dispose of the body. He could have felt he was taking too much time, or lost track of time, and decided it was best to put as much distance between himself and the crime as possible, and establish an alibi (dancing) as soon as possible.

The idea that Guede had only one intention, that it was stable, that he was logical and thinking ahead, seems more like wishful thinking on our part, than careful forethought on Rudy's end.

We know Meredith was murdered. We know Guede was there. We know no one else except Guede was there. We know there are undisclosed human DNA profiles from downstairs, and IIRC, there was never any species specific test to determine it was in fact CAT's blood.

If the police are acting to conceal the crime scene downstairs, then why? They couldn't get past the downstairs boys alibis, and the Italian girls had lawyered up.

I feel like the police covering for Rudy fills in some holes, provides logical motivation for the police trying to first cover for him by framing Lumumba, and then deflecting guilt away from him by lessening his role.

I know many are against this idea of a connection between Rudy and the police/Mignini, but I'm still of the opinion its real, and explains a lot.

 

[Desert Fox]

I know many are against this idea of a connection between Rudy and the police/Mignini, but I'm still of the opinion its real, and explains a lot.

Not against the idea, just not much going for it.

 

[carbonjam72]

(Sorry, forum rules don't allow me to copy the Youtube link.)
Your quote from a thousand miles away in time/space is well received though.
Yet the concept of revenge that justice drags along with its every breath cripples it, Amanda and Raffaele and Rudy have suffered hell, the punishment must stop. The Italian justice system works as well as any other and won't improve, or the French, or the American system, as long as overpopulation is aggravating.
We can argue the good will of good men and their competence, but huge numbers rule.
But not only numbers:
Every time people talk about justice, there's this elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss, the law professionals don't want to hear about it either: vengeance.
Under the guise of absolute, archetypal, eternal, godly fairness & truth, … we are going for blood.
Besides, no one knows the price of a human life, and the concept of "s/he's won't do it again" (unrepeatable offense) is always dwarfed in the face of retribution.
"Yes, but you wouldn't say that if it happened to your daughter!"
Yes i have a daughter and i went to jail (custody abduction), first in Italy then in France, to protect her and my son, and if anything happens to one's kids, revenge is very continuously present for years in anyone's mind, but it doesn't justify justice. (My kids live with me legally, in peace now.)
Meaning, for Meredith i want vengeance, as a father, stupidly, and for Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele i want things to stop, as a father.You're playing a card game in a locked room with a stronger, faster, smarter opponent, armed while you're not, and hope to save your skin by showing him that each card he shows, you can show better, while dissing him, and he has concluded long ago that you can't get out of that room alive.
I'd call this typically a masculine strategy; it's time to change it.

Your thinking is flawed, when you confuse the position of Amanda and Raf, with that of Guede.

Amanda and Raf are innocent because they are, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise. Rudy is guilty because he is, and the evidence against him is voluminous and incontrovertible.

Amanda and Raf don't appear to be innocent as a function of a rhetorical exercise. It's based on facts and evidence.

Applying the same energy to Rudy Guede's defense won't yield the same result, because the facts and evidence weigh against him.

That you consider the positions of Amanda, Raf and Rudy to be equivalent, is the symptom of a disordered mind. You just aren't thinking rationally. There is such a thing as reality, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Who can argue with that.

If you think Amanda and Raf are guilty, please provide any indication of any kind that causes you to believe it.

If you think Rudy Guede is innocent, please do the same.

 

[Diocletus]

Hi Mach,

Thanks for this information on the meaning of negative (no template) controls in Stefanoni's lab. As I understand, your position is that she considers the appearance of DNA in the negative controls, after the controls go through the replication cycles, as normal, rather than an indication that there is likely a problem with contamination in the DNA testing process.

It's good to have him finally admitting that the lab was full of contamination albeit he seems to think that that's normal and just fine.

 

[Machiavelli]

Bologna. You have seen citations which indicate otherwise many times. All you have done is to make an assertion with zero evidence. Professor Krane and Professor Hampikian both wanted them and made requests through the defense. Carlo dalla Vedova discussed this in a 2011 interview when the subject came up with respect to the independent experts. Or are you playing word games?

We perfectly all know the first and only time Carlo Dalla Vedova (or was it Ghirga?) mentioned a request of raw data, it was already in 2009, at the end of the trial phase and after Stefanoni's testimony, it was only an oral statement, it was confused and was not understood by the judge. There was no request before that, and it was never repeated after that, not even during the Hellmann appeal nor made in the Reasons for Appeal, neither an instance was submitted to the Supreme Court, nor to any other court.
There was no request of EDFs made to Stefanoni that was denied.

It is interesting that you word a statement like "Prof. Krane and Prof. Hampikian made requests through the defence". Because nobody, in a trial, makes requests "through" the defence. Either you are the defence, or a party, or you are not in the position of making requests.

Under the rules of the game, the time for making direct requests was supposed to be over with the formal closure of the investigation, on June 18. 2008.

 

[Machiavelli]

You do realize that you are trying to explain away contamination during the extraction process by referring to a stochastic phenomena that is specific to the amplification process?

If not, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

My understanding is the drop-in allele just looks always the same whenever it occurs, at whenever cycle of the amplification process the event lies; as for my understanding, it can only be detected on profile extraction.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

We perfectly all know the first and only time Carlo Dalla Vedova (or was it Ghirga?) mentioned a request of raw data, it was already in 2009, at the end of the trial phase and after Stefanoni's testimony, it was only an oral statement, it was confused and was not understood by the judge.
There was no request of EDFs made to Stefanoni that was denied.

It is interesting that you word a statement like "Prof. Krane and Prof. Hampikian made requests through the defence". Because nobody, in a trial, makes requests "through" the defence. Either you are the defence, or a party, or you are not in the position of making requests.

Under the rules of the game, the time for making direct requests was supposed to be over with the formal closure of the investigation, on June 18. 2008.

What have the rules of the game got to do with anything?

We are all here to discover the truth, surely?

You seem to be arguing that it's okay to jail innocent defendants if their defence wasn't very competent, which is a very strange thing to say. Even if what you were saying was true, as opposed to revisionist history made up to make the Perugian law enforcement community less corrupt, it would still be irrelevant.

 

[Diocletus]

We perfectly all know the first and only time Carlo Dalla Vedova (or was it Ghirga?) mentioned a request of raw data, it was already in 2009, at the end of the trial phase and after Stefanoni's testimony, it was only an oral statement, it was confused and was not understood by the judge.
There was no request of EDFs made to Stefanoni that was denied.

It is interesting that you word a statement like "Prof. Krane and Prof. Hampikian made requests through the defence". Because nobody, in a trial, makes requests "through" the defence. Either you are the defence, or a party, or you are not in the position of making requests.

Under the rules of the game, the time for making direct requests was supposed to be over with the formal closure of the investigation, on June 18. 2008.

Oh really. So when did Novelli make his request?

 

[Diocletus]

My understanding is the drop-in allele just looks always the same whenever it occurs, at whenever cycle of the amplification process the event lies; as for my understanding, it can only be detected on profile extraction.

You need some help here, then.