Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Really? Then how did Novelli get the data?

By requesting access to Stefanoni's laboratory. Something the defence experts did not do.

 

[Machiavelli]

Unless it's badly translated, Nencini's motivation records his task was simply to determine whether Knox and Sollecito pre-planned the murder or just got carried away with a sex game that got out of hand. In that context, it's difficult to see why the EDFs matter. In fact, it's not easy to see whether the defence teams properly grasped what the appeal was about. As I say, it may be the motivation is poorly translated but, in it, Nencini records his task as follows (as I posted recently):

You and Halkides are right on this. I forgot this request may have been one of the 15 defensive requests at the opening phase of the Florence Appeal. I didn't remember all the requests. I am not sure they were among the 15 requests of the 2013 appeal, I would need to read again the transcripts to be 100% sure about that. But that might well be.

 

[Diocletus]

By requesting access to Stefanoni's laboratory. Something the defence experts did not do.

So let me see--according to you:

1) the criminal defense lawyers cannot ask the court-appointed consultants to see their raw data, but some civil party's consultant can ask the prosecution's technical consultant for her data?

2) even though the court ordered the prosecution to produce Stefanoni's raw data, and that easily could have been done by making a CD copy, it was necessary for the criminal defendants also to ask her directly and go to her lab to get it?

3) the criminal defendants can't get information about their own case, but some civil party's consultant can go and get information about different cases, and then offer hearsay testimony about it without producing a report or backup data?

This is just so silly.

 

[anglolawyer]

Look, I am perfectly ready to talk about C&V's report, but I cannot talk about so all topics. I have spent already too much timereading this forum on my cell phone this Sunday.
I also add that the things that would attract my attention, that I consider relevant or important to discuss about in the C&V report, are probably not the same things that are seen as important by pro-Knox supporters. And not only I would consider the letter of the report, I would also criticize the sources of C&V's statements, their process of collecting the information basis for their reasoning; and I would also cross the text of report with trial papers and with the testimonies of the same Conti and Vecchiotti. And also, consider jurisprudence.



The question is not about being a good or bad scientist. The problem with Vecchiotti and her not testing the 36I trace, which was duly spotted by the Supreme Court, is not with their being good or bad scientists but rather their being unfaithful expert witnesses. As by the words used by the Supreme Court to address the point, they were dishonest, not bad. They lied when they said that the decision of not testing the 36I trace was a shared with all parties experts including Novelli, since there is no signature and no agreement to that. They violated the borders of their mandate which was to perform tests they should have accomplished, they acted as judges and not as experts because they decided themselves what evidence they should seek and collect and what the field of their research would be - in violation to a judges' order - based on their own judgement about what potentuial DNA result should be judged reliable by a court, and they violated the judges' order saying whenever they foundthemselves before a new decision to take, they should consult with the judges before taking any decision (and not after).
In addition to that, ultimately they are considered unreliable experts for all what they have done, but also because they were appointed by a judge who is now considered discredited and leading a trial following an illegitimate conduct (you can't question this if you read the Supreme Court annullment).

I appreciate your time is limited, as is mine. However, you have contributed many posts to this discussion since C-V was first published and yet I do not recall you getting to grips with it in serious detail.

As for what you or the ISC says about C-V I am afraid I regard all of it as quite bogus. It is utterly absurd to regard the supposed 'failure' to test 36I (a documented and properly explained decision) as reflecting on the competence of the independent experts while ignoring, as you do, the glaring and gross omissions, blunders, concealment, evasion and very possibly deliberate fraud of Stefanoni.

It is at once both laughable and appalling how Galati, the ISC and Nencini have lined themselves up with the prosecution in attacking the scientists who correctly deconstructed Stefanoni's bogus evidence.

 

[Numbers]

The downstairs profiles were all suppressed.

The cops clearly suspected that someone from downstairs committed the crime. They did their first sampling there, and tested those samples first. They must have been shocked when all of the boys returned with rock solid alibis. I wonder when the last of the boys established his alibi? I'm guessing on the 4th or even the 5th. I'm guessing that with Romanelli and Mazzetti having good alibis, by process of elimination, that left Knox as the sole suspect. That's how stupid these cops were.

The question is, why was it so important to disappear the downstairs test results after the boys' involvement was excluded? Two things come to mind: 1) it would have made no sense for Knox to go down there, and 2) it could have undermined the staged break-in theory because the downstairs entry would undeniably have been a real B&E.

Now, as a beginner, self-taught conspiracy theorist, I have more questions.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the police decided to "frame" (falsely accuse) Amanda Knox. There would need to be a male conspirator to commit the rape. No problem in terms of the frame - her alibi is her boyfriend. There is a broken window - assigned this to a "staging" to implicate an unknown burglar, who, in terms of the frame, is non-existent.

Why does the frame need Patrick Lumumba? If the messages between Amanda and Patrick are understood in context ("See you later. Good night.") there is no meeting between the two. If the police did not know at the beginning of the interrogation of Amanda and Raffaele who was the source of the semen, it would be reasonable for them to attribute it to Raffaele as part of the frame.

Presumably the police don't have Raffaele's DNA profile at the beginning of the interrogation for comparison to the rape kit (or semen stain, if tested) results. So why not frame him for the rape?

But if there were some evidence of a different male, in particular a sub-Saharan African (that is, a person with DNA suggesting probable ancestry from one of the several sub-Saharan population groups, known from that DNA or perhaps some other indicator: hair or an eye-witness, for example), then adding Patrick to the frame becomes essential.

Of course, for this case, being a conspiracy theorist means working backwards into the void of suppressed evidence and the lies of the officials.

ETA: Without meaning any disrespect to Patrick Lumumba, from photos of him I believe that the police would find his entry into the upstairs apartment through the window highly unlikely or impossible; he seems shorter and less lithe than Rudy Guede. These physical characteristics of Patrick would then suggest to the police, having focused on him because he was Amanda's boss and African, that Amanda (a key holder) had to have let him in. Thus the window breakin was staged. The whole frame is a self-consistent if circular bit of thinking. Obviously, it fell apart because of Patrick's strong alibi, but also should have been seen as totally wrong when the reference DNA profiles of the suspects were compared to the crime scene. Amanda and Raffaele were kept in the frame partly to protect Mignini's reputation, I suspect.

 

[Diocletus]

Now, as a beginner, self-taught conspiracy theorist, I have more questions.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the police decided to "frame" (falsely accuse) Amanda Knox. There would need to be a male conspirator to commit the rape. No problem in terms of the frame - her alibi is her boyfriend. There is a broken window - assigned this to a "staging" to implicate an unknown burglar, who, in terms of the frame, is non-existent.

Why does the frame need Patrick Lumumba? If the messages between Amanda and Patrick are understood in context ("See you later. Good night.") there is no meeting between the two. If the police did not know at the beginning of the interrogation of Amanda and Raffaele who was the source of the semen, it would be reasonable for them to attribute it to Raffaele as part of the frame.

Presumably the police don't have Raffaele's DNA profile at the beginning of the interrogation for comparison to the rape kit (or semen stain, if tested) results. So why not frame him for the rape?

But if there were some evidence of a different male, in particular a sub-Saharan African (that is, a person with DNA suggesting probable ancestry from one of the several sub-Saharan population groups, known from that DNA or perhaps some other indicator: hair or an eye-witness, for example), then adding Patrick to the frame becomes essential.

Of course, for this case, being a conspiracy theorist means working backwards into the void of suppressed evidence and the lies of the officials.

ETA: Without meaning any disrespect to Patrick Lumumba, from photos of him I believe that the police would find his entry into the upstairs apartment through the window highly unlikely or impossible; he seems shorter and less lithe than Rudy Guede. These physical characteristics of Patrick would then suggest to the police, having focused on him because he was Amanda's boss and African, that Amanda (a key holder) had to have let him in. Thus the window breakin was staged. The whole frame is a self-consistent if circular bit of thinking. Obviously, it fell apart because of Patrick's strong alibi, but also should have been seen as totally wrong when the reference DNA profiles of the suspects were compared to the crime scene. Amanda and Raffaele were kept in the frame partly to protect Mignini's reputation, I suspect.

It's an interesting point to note that the one thing that the police knew at the very outset was that the crime involved a male, because it was a sexual assault (see Stef's urgent phone call).

They immediately fixate on the boys downstairs, because they find blood down there. The broken window doesn't make much sense in this scenario, but what does make sense is that a perp from downstairs faked the break in to make it look like some other guy broke in and committed the crime. So, they go with that. It's interesting to note that the break-in samples were actually collected by a totally separate branch of the police (the Provincial Police (who were they?)), suggesting that the Mobile Squad and Stefanoni were disinterested in the break-in at a very early date).

But then, the boys all alibi out of the picture. Knox is the only one left with a key who can't prove that she was out of town. But, they need a male to have actually committed the main crime, due to biology, Knox can be only an accessory. At this point, the downstairs crime scene becomes a liability and it goes out of the picture.

I think that the cops didn't believe that Sollecito was involved in the crime. They called him in for questioning to get him to give up Knox's alibi, so that they could then get Knox to give up her "accomplice" in committing the crime. I think that they already thought that Lumumba was the accomplice because they checked the phone records and knew that there was an exchange of communications between Knox and Lumumba on the night of the murder. They may even have known that they "arranged a meeting."

 

[Bill Williams]

A poster at IIP has nailed Rudy Guede as a liar, and as a lying liar at that. This is in regards to the "timeline" which must be assumed in Rudy's first skype call from Germany, where he is unaware that the call is being monitored.

The poster has concluded that Rudy Guede is trying to "massage" the timeline, to build something where he, himself, is innocent, even as he is about to admit to being in the cottage at the time of the murder.

But his "massaging" simply sends his narrative/timeline careening off a cliff, because.....

.... he needs to have his consensual tryst with Meredith start at around ....

- He says he met-up with Meredith at 8:20 or 8:30 PM. He completely hoses himself here. Until 8:55+, Meredith has an alibi: phone, walking with Sophie. Why did Rudy feel the need to have met Meredith earlier? Easy. He needed that they had some intimate time together. Or else EVERYTHING would have happened in just a few minutes from them walking in the front door together. Rudy screwed-the-pooch on that one.

You see, Rudy assumes that the PLE are working with an early T.O.D., because he (alone) knows when Meredith died. Rudy knows there's not a lot of time to play with in a narrative much past 9 pm. To relieve pressure on the timing of his narrative, Rudy fumbles things by guessing (wrongly) that Meredith's own whereabouts were unknown in the middle part of the evening.

For my money, 8:20 to 8:30 on Nov 1 is when Rudy broke in through Filomena's window. It's his de facto admission that his criminality started then.

But it was a good catch by Cherocoy.

 

[Numbers]

It's an interesting point to note that the one thing that the police knew at the very outset was that the crime involved a male, because it was a sexual assault (see Stef's urgent phone call).

They immediately fixate on the boys downstairs, because they find blood down there. The broken window doesn't make much sense in this scenario, but what does make sense is that a perp from downstairs faked the break in to make it look like some other guy broke in and committed the crime. So, they go with that. It's interesting to note that the break-in samples were actually collected by a totally separate branch of the police (the Provincial Police (who were they?)), suggesting that the Mobile Squad and Stefanoni were disinterested in the break-in at a very early date).

But then, the boys all alibi out of the picture. Knox is the only one left with a key who can't prove that she was out of town. But, they need a male to have actually committed the main crime, due to biology, Knox can be only an accessory. At this point, the downstairs crime scene becomes a liability and it goes out of the picture.

I think that the cops didn't believe that Sollecito was involved in the crime. They called him in for questioning to get him to give up Knox's alibi, so that they could then get Knox to give up her "accomplice" in committing the crime. I think that they already thought that Lumumba was the accomplice because they checked the phone records and knew that there was an exchange of communications between Knox and Lumumba on the night of the murder. They may even have known that they "arranged a meeting."

In your scenario, which may make as much sense as any, that Lumumba and the actual murderer/rapist, Guede, were both of African descent is then a mere coincidence. Could be, but my evil twin, a conspirator theorist, doesn't like it. But coincidences happen.

ETA: Bolded sentence in your post: Her Italian roommates had keys and were in town, with boyfriends, but hired lawyers soon after MK's body was discovered (supposedly to help break the apartment lease?). And my evil twin suggests neither had an African male associate to frame.

 

[Diocletus]

In your scenario, which may make as much sense as any, that Lumumba and the actual murderer/rapist, Guede, were both of African descent is then a mere coincidence. Could be, but my evil twin, a conspirator theorist, doesn't like it. But coincidences happen.

ETA: Bolded sentence in your post: Her Italian roommates had keys and were in town, with boyfriends, but hired lawyers soon after MK's body was discovered (supposedly to help break the apartment lease?). And my evil twin suggests neither had an African male associate to frame.

Just thinking out loud: there could be another reason why the cops thought the break in was faked--perhaps believed that Meredith was already home when the intruder appeared. Obviously, if the window had been broken when Meredith was home, she would have heard it and gotten away. But why would they think that the window was broken after the murder, instead of, say 8:00 to 9:00 (when she wasn't there). Is 8:30 too early for window breaking in Perugia?

 

[LondonJohn]

It's an interesting point to note that the one thing that the police knew at the very outset was that the crime involved a male, because it was a sexual assault (see Stef's urgent phone call).

They immediately fixate on the boys downstairs, because they find blood down there. The broken window doesn't make much sense in this scenario, but what does make sense is that a perp from downstairs faked the break in to make it look like some other guy broke in and committed the crime. So, they go with that. It's interesting to note that the break-in samples were actually collected by a totally separate branch of the police (the Provincial Police (who were they?)), suggesting that the Mobile Squad and Stefanoni were disinterested in the break-in at a very early date).

But then, the boys all alibi out of the picture. Knox is the only one left with a key who can't prove that she was out of town. But, they need a male to have actually committed the main crime, due to biology, Knox can be only an accessory. At this point, the downstairs crime scene becomes a liability and it goes out of the picture.

I think that the cops didn't believe that Sollecito was involved in the crime. They called him in for questioning to get him to give up Knox's alibi, so that they could then get Knox to give up her "accomplice" in committing the crime. I think that they already thought that Lumumba was the accomplice because they checked the phone records and knew that there was an exchange of communications between Knox and Lumumba on the night of the murder. They may even have known that they "arranged a meeting."

I broadly agree with everything here.

It seems to me that the police and prosecutors in this case were constantly using an improper overarching methodology: that is to say, they were coming up with "theories" of the crime, then searching for evidence to support their theory*. Once they came up against any evidence that conclusively disproved their a priori theory, they tweaked the theory to be compatible with the evidence. This is of course utterly contrary to well-proven best practice, which is to analyse all the evidence first, then use that evidence to develop a theory.

I too think that there's something potentially VERY fishy about the whole situation with the downstairs evidence. In addition, I (like you) believe that by the evening of the 5th November the police/PM had decided that Knox was directly involved in some way, alongside the person with whom by then they knew she'd been in text contact that evening (whom I believe they assumed was the male perpetrator). I also believe that the Police/PM thought Sollecito was only covering for Knox to protect her, but that he had no direct involvement.

And that's why I firmly believe that the plan on the 5th was to bring Sollecito in alone. That way, he would be physically - and emotionally, they hoped - separated from Knox, and the police would break him and get him to admit that he had lied to protect Knox, and that Knox in fact had left his apartment during the evening of the murder. I think that once this had been achieved, the plan was for the full "snatch squad" to stomp loudly into downtown Perugia to arrest Knox (who would have been under surveillance to confirm her whereabouts), in the sort of triumphalist public arrest that the Perugia goons seem so keen on. Then they would confront Knox with Sollecito's dropping of her alibi, and believed that she would then quickly break. Since they knew for sure that there was a male perp (whom they probably also knew was not Sollecito), they would also use the ruse that Knox would not be in much trouble if she told them the identity of the male perp (coupled with the implicit threat that she would be in danger from this perp if he remained at large).

As it turned out of course, Knox came into the police HQ with Sollecito, thus dashing the police's grand plan to arrest her very publicly. But the plan only required a small tweak - the basics of it remained, and the snatch squad was employed anyhow dragging Lumumba out of his house with wholly-unnecessary attendant physical and verbal abuse.


* Shockingly enough, this also seems to be the modus operandi of the Italian Supreme Court: they appear to have said - in as many words - to Nencini: "We know there were multiple people involved in this murder, and we think that Knox and Sollecito are the only viable candidates for the additional people (besides Guede). So all you need to do is come up with a plausible way in which Knox and Sollecito were involved that is not contradicted by any evidence, and Bob's your uncle."

 

[anglolawyer]

I broadly agree with everything here.

It seems to me that the police and prosecutors in this case were constantly using an improper overarching methodology: that is to say, they were coming up with "theories" of the crime, then searching for evidence to support their theory*. Once they came up against any evidence that conclusively disproved their a priori theory, they tweaked the theory to be compatible with the evidence. This is of course utterly contrary to well-proven best practice, which is to analyse all the evidence first, then use that evidence to develop a theory.

I too think that there's something potentially VERY fishy about the whole situation with the downstairs evidence. In addition, I (like you) believe that by the evening of the 5th November the police/PM had decided that Knox was directly involved in some way, alongside the person with whom by then they knew she'd been in text contact that evening (whom I believe they assumed was the male perpetrator). I also believe that the Police/PM thought Sollecito was only covering for Knox to protect her, but that he had no direct involvement.

And that's why I firmly believe that the plan on the 5th was to bring Sollecito in alone. That way, he would be physically - and emotionally, they hoped - separated from Knox, and the police would break him and get him to admit that he had lied to protect Knox, and that Knox in fact had left his apartment during the evening of the murder. I think that once this had been achieved, the plan was for the full "snatch squad" to stomp loudly into downtown Perugia to arrest Knox (who would have been under surveillance to confirm her whereabouts), in the sort of triumphalist public arrest that the Perugia goons seem so keen on. Then they would confront Knox with Sollecito's dropping of her alibi, and believed that she would then quickly break. Since they knew for sure that there was a male perp (whom they probably also knew was not Sollecito), they would also use the ruse that Knox would not be in much trouble if she told them the identity of the male perp (coupled with the implicit threat that she would be in danger from this perp if he remained at large).

As it turned out of course, Knox came into the police HQ with Sollecito, thus dashing the police's grand plan to arrest her very publicly. But the plan only required a small tweak - the basics of it remained, and the snatch squad was employed anyhow dragging Lumumba out of his house with wholly-unnecessary attendant physical and verbal abuse.


* Shockingly enough, this also seems to be the modus operandi of the Italian Supreme Court: they appear to have said - in as many words - to Nencini: "We know there were multiple people involved in this murder, and we think that Knox and Sollecito are the only viable candidates for the additional people (besides Guede). So all you need to do is come up with a plausible way in which Knox and Sollecito were involved that is not contradicted by any evidence, and Bob's your uncle."

One thing to factor into your account is the certain fact that while the cops were demanding Raffaele's presence at the cop shop, they were illegally gaining access to his apartment and interfering with his computer, as we now know from his consultant's report on the Mac Book pro.

 

[Numbers]

I broadly agree with everything here.

It seems to me that the police and prosecutors in this case were constantly using an improper overarching methodology: that is to say, they were coming up with "theories" of the crime, then searching for evidence to support their theory*. Once they came up against any evidence that conclusively disproved their a priori theory, they tweaked the theory to be compatible with the evidence. This is of course utterly contrary to well-proven best practice, which is to analyse all the evidence first, then use that evidence to develop a theory.

I too think that there's something potentially VERY fishy about the whole situation with the downstairs evidence. In addition, I (like you) believe that by the evening of the 5th November the police/PM had decided that Knox was directly involved in some way, alongside the person with whom by then they knew she'd been in text contact that evening (whom I believe they assumed was the male perpetrator). I also believe that the Police/PM thought Sollecito was only covering for Knox to protect her, but that he had no direct involvement.

And that's why I firmly believe that the plan on the 5th was to bring Sollecito in alone. That way, he would be physically - and emotionally, they hoped - separated from Knox, and the police would break him and get him to admit that he had lied to protect Knox, and that Knox in fact had left his apartment during the evening of the murder. I think that once this had been achieved, the plan was for the full "snatch squad" to stomp loudly into downtown Perugia to arrest Knox (who would have been under surveillance to confirm her whereabouts), in the sort of triumphalist public arrest that the Perugia goons seem so keen on. Then they would confront Knox with Sollecito's dropping of her alibi, and believed that she would then quickly break. Since they knew for sure that there was a male perp (whom they probably also knew was not Sollecito), they would also use the ruse that Knox would not be in much trouble if she told them the identity of the male perp (coupled with the implicit threat that she would be in danger from this perp if he remained at large).

As it turned out of course, Knox came into the police HQ with Sollecito, thus dashing the police's grand plan to arrest her very publicly. But the plan only required a small tweak - the basics of it remained, and the snatch squad was employed anyhow dragging Lumumba out of his house with wholly-unnecessary attendant physical and verbal abuse.


* Shockingly enough, this also seems to be the modus operandi of the Italian Supreme Court: they appear to have said - in as many words - to Nencini: "We know there were multiple people involved in this murder, and we think that Knox and Sollecito are the only viable candidates for the additional people (besides Guede). So all you need to do is come up with a plausible way in which Knox and Sollecito were involved that is not contradicted by any evidence, and Bob's your uncle."

According to the CSC judicial logic, since Guede was convicted in a fast-track trial and Knox and Sollecito were named as conspirators with him in that trial, and some time (4 years?) was taken off his sentence because he was supposedly the junior partner to Knox, and since the CSC itself confirmed (finalized) that verdict, Knox and Sollecito must be found guilty in their own adversarial trial. Otherwise a "judicial fact" would be contradicted.

Does the interpretation I offer agree with your reading of the case?

 

[Diocletus]

One thing to factor into your account is the certain fact that while the cops were demanding Raffaele's presence at the cop shop, they were illegally gaining access to his apartment and interfering with his computer, as we now know from his consultant's report on the Mac Book pro.

I wonder if its possible that not knowing that Knox would show up at the cop shop on her own, somebody went over to Sollecito's to nab Knox, saw the computer, looked to see if they could get in (untripping the screensaver), and then left. This would have prompted them to get the password from Sollecito. Probably rifled the knife drawer while they were at it.

 

[Desert Fox]

According to the CSC judicial logic, since Guede was convicted in a fast-track trial and Knox and Sollecito were named as conspirators with him in that trial, and some time (4 years?) was taken off his sentence because he was supposedly the junior partner to Knox, and since the CSC itself confirmed (finalized) that verdict, Knox and Sollecito must be found guilty in their own adversarial trial. Otherwise a "judicial fact" would be contradicted.

Does the interpretation I offer agree with your reading of the case?

While I am not a real strong supporter of any real conspiracy, it does really look like the Italian Supreme Court did specifically direct they they be found guilty no matter what the evidence actually shows.

 

[Machiavelli]

One thing to factor into your account is the certain fact that while the cops were demanding Raffaele's presence at the cop shop, they were illegally gaining access to his apartment and interfering with his computer, as we now know from his consultant's report on the Mac Book pro.

Why do you say "illegally"?

 

[Planigale]

Machiavelli said in a previous thread

"It's just my own speculation, but what I think, my personal opinion about raw data files (note: I wrote 'raw data', not EDFs) in the incidente probatorio, is that those would be considered "sources" and not "documents". I mean that it is not an issue of altruistic values but of parity of arms in an adversarial scheme.
As for my understanding, the raw data in question are a type of vectorial image files, with an array of numeric data values attached. That means: if there are data sources, from which you may produce a document, for example an image file about a magnified detail, a picture, that a machine with diferent settings may render as a chart with a different form that was not looked at at the incidente probatorio, like say a magnified image with more stretched peaks or so, this means the defence party may be able to produe in court some 'evidence' documents which the prosecution and the other parties don't have, didn't have a chance to examine, or didn't agree would be examined. This would be obviously something against the spirit of the incidente probatorio. "

So to try and explain a bit of what happens and why raw data are needed. We are looking at the output from the capillary electrophoresis. The DNA is linked to a fluorescent marker, this is illuminated by a laser fluoresces, and read by a photodetector. The output is digital time vs magnitude. Essentially the output every e.g. thousandth of a second is read. So in reality you can imagine the output not as curve but a series of lines. However this is where it gets complicated. What is the baseline? Most instruments will have some base line output. So say the mean baseline fluorescence is 10 but with a range of 5 - 15. We decide a significant signal is 50 (above baseline) a signal of interest haas a value of 60 whether it is significant then becomes critically dependant on what we choose as the baseline offset (i.e. we set zero to be at 10 or 15 the latter excludes any non specific fluorescence contribution. Then we need to think about linearity so we look at our positive controls / calibration curve and we set a best fit slope, but this can be critically affected by what we set our baseline to be.

So how do we get a curve, this will be the product of various smoothing algorithms, on the values obtained having applied a baseline offset and slope to the raw output to get data values. There may be filters to smooth out noise from non specific DNA fragments, and non specific staining. This could hide small peaks, small peaks that are significant if looking at low copy number DNA such as the MK DNA found in the knife blade extract.

So the point is the curve is not the raw output but an analysis / interpretation that is the product of a number of adjustments slope / offset etc. applied to the output then turned into a curve by data processing software. Actually since a number of different colour probes are used with differing behaviours one has a set of values for different probes.

If the defence are entitled to the results of the STR typing then this is the EDF file not a print out.

 

[Kaosium]

I started a bit of lit research on the question of population group ("race" may be viewed as an obsolete term) and forensic STR loci in terms of probabilities ("probable" not "determined"). There are publications. But I'm hoping that those on the forum with expertise can tell me if my idea is unrealistic or wildly unrealistic.

Here's something that might help in that endeavor.

 

[anglolawyer]

I wonder if its possible that not knowing that Knox would show up at the cop shop on her own, somebody went over to Sollecito's to nab Knox, saw the computer, looked to see if they could get in (untripping the screensaver), and then left. This would have prompted them to get the password from Sollecito. Probably rifled the knife drawer while they were at it.

I reckon they had them under surveillance, knew very well they were elsewhere and demanded Raffaele come in partly so as to be sure they could invade his place undetected. This was an element in an operation that included the tag-team, all-night pre-planned interrogation of both of them.

What do you think they wanted to check his laptop for?

 

[Bill Williams]

One thing to factor into your account is the certain fact that while the cops were demanding Raffaele's presence at the cop shop, they were illegally gaining access to his apartment and interfering with his computer, as we now know from his consultant's report on the Mac Book pro.

Why do you say "illegally"?

LOL!

Note that Machiavelli does not dispute the factuality of this. (Which is the first jaw-dropper!)

Machiavelli also seems to concede that the police actually had the legal right to enter Raffaele's place to "search", when Raffaele is a non-suspect. Maybe it's a space-time continuum thing, where in one space-time reality he is a non-suspect, and in another he's down at the Questura being asked to surrender his Nike's, as well as provide Knox an alibi for either Wednesday or Thurday of the week-previous, without letting him consult a calendar.

It sure sounds like Raffaele was a suspect, which the cops were rifling through his place.

No wonder Machiavelli won't answer about his views on De Nunzio. He's too busy muddying the waters around the legality of the police breaking into random people's homes.

 

[anglolawyer]

Why do you say "illegally"?

Covert entry to private premises without warrant. Is this legal in Italy?