Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Wasn't the evidence, in part, the testimony of Filomena and the police officer(s) who entered the room before Meredith's body was found? The room had been disrupted by Filomena picking up items which had glass fragments on top of them. So the investigative photos wouldn't necessarily show every part of the room as it was before it was entered by Filomena and the police.

Very early in the investigation it was being reported in the journals that the police believed the break-in was simulated. I don't recall if there were specifics as to why this was thought.

How does Filomena feel about the appallingly messy state she left her bedroom in being photographed and analysed for the world to see?

 

[christianahannah]

How does Filomena feel about the appallingly messy state she left her bedroom in being photographed and analysed for the world to see?

I don't think there was any testimony as to that description, however, Amanda and Raffaele both testified to the room being tossed and they immediately thought of a robbery and checked items to see if they were missing in other parts of the cottage.

I guess Amanda would know the normal state of Filomena's room, being a flatmate. Amanda was alarmed at the disarray in the room that morning so I would think how it looked was not normal.

 

[Dan O.]

...

Very early in the investigation it was being reported in the journals that the police believed the break-in was simulated. I don't recall if there were specifics as to why this was thought.

Can you find anything in the press reports about this staging theory prior to December?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

And you call yourself a burglar...

It defeats the purpose of throwing the rock as a means of testing for the presence of occupants if you climb up to the window with the rock. In other circumstances such as breaking into a law office after hours, stealth is more important so one would carry the rock up to the balcony and try to muffle the sound of breaking glass. In such a case we would expect to find the rock outside as it was at the law office and not inside as with Filomena's room.

-

To be honest, I don't know if I'm a real burglar or not. I've burgled, but does that automatically make me an expert at burgling?

Hell no.

Besides, I'm a ground floor kind of guy. I've done almost a couple dozen all together, one two story job, two stores, and the rest houses, and one time (making it an even two dozen) I broke into my own house, but I don't think that should count,

d

-

 

[christianahannah]

Can you find anything in the press reports about this staging theory prior to December?

Yes. This link:

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/...va_suo_assassino_Trovate_co_9_071104164.shtml

 

[AmyStrange]

-

<snip>

The difference is the fact that in Meredith bedroom, there was a bloody violent murder in a small confined space. One would expect there to be more evidence left behind, and there was. Indeed, there was lots of biological traces from only Rudy Guede, and if other people were also present, it seems not just likely, but necessary that they would have left similar amounts of similar evidence of themselves in the room too. As further physical confirmation, there is only one set of footprints in Merdith's wet blood, which Rudy acknowledges are his own, and that he was there when Meredith bled to death. That not only didn't he call the police, but he further locked the door and then went dancing, and then fled the country before anyone was looking for him specifically. Morever, the defense expert took a photo of one of Rudy's footprints that appeared to show glass in his shoe, suggesting the glass was broken before Rudy stepped in Meredith's wet blood.

Dr Mark Waterbury (IIRC) wrote that it is a scientific impossibility that anyone else could have participated in the murder of Meredith, and not left any evidence of themselves behind. (I know that quote isn't exact, but it was something to that effect, others may jump in and correct - the point is, this was a violent bloody mess, and evidence of only one person - Rudy).

Filomena's Bedroom window -

So once we accept that Rudy was in Meredith's room when she died, and had stepped in glass before hand, what is the more scenario as to how Rudy entered the cottage? Rudy's story that he was on a date with Meredith? Or that he entered through the window, the same methodology he had used in previous break-ins?

Someone broke that window. You could suggest it wasn't Rudy because evidence of Rudy wasn't found in Filomena's bedroom. But someone upthread mentioned only 5 samples were taken. And separately, there was 'apparent blood' and hair samples found on the windowsill. (Chris mentioned the 'presumed blood' tested positive for TMB, but after improperly delayed for months, failed a follow-up test after the blood sample may well have lost its ability to respond to that follow-up test. AND, the hairs were (IIRC) somehow lost by Stef's lab.

So the police didn't look as hard for evidence in Filomena's room, and lost or mishandled evidence they did find that may well have directly linked Rudy to that room. So its not a fair comparison of 'apples to apples' as they say, to suggest that zero evidence of Amanda in Meredith's room is equally exculpatory of the lack of evidence of Rudy in Filomena's room. Amanda lived at the cottage, her traces could have been found and been there innocently. Rudy did not live there, and his presence anywhere in the house is already a violation of that domicile. Guilters like to say 'the whole cottage is the crime scene'. In regards to Rudy's crime of B&E, that statement is true. With respect to Amanda's traces of her presence in her own home, it most certainly is not).

I would say, the fact that there is glass in Rudy's shoe print in Meredith's wet blood, puts Rudy in Filomena's room when the window was broken, contrary to the story he has told. Maybe that's the best I can do.

But let's try it the other way around. If Rudy didn't break the window, then who did? Why pick Amanda and Raf over anyone else in Perugia at the time?

The fact that the witness Popovic verified Amanda and Raf at Raf's apartment at 840pm, ought to be confirmation of their alibi that they spent the entire night at Raf's apartment. I think its unsupported, and indeed false conjecture, to suggest they ever left Raf's apartment. It's literally only Mignini's allegation that the question of Amanda and Raf's whereabouts are even being discussed. (the only witness who claims to have seen them outside that night, is the serial Mignini witness, and homeless heroin addict Curatolo, who gave contradictory testimony, and let's face it, should never have been allowed into court.)

At some point, you have to call a spade a spade. There may be people who never quite reach that point in this case and others, but the standard is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I'm past that point on Rudy's guilt, and Amanda and Raf's innocence.

-

<snip>

One of MY BIGGEST PROBLEMS is the three attacker scenario like I posted earlier.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited. Rule 11

 

[Kaosium]

Wasn't the evidence, in part, the testimony of Filomena and the police officer(s) who entered the room before Meredith's body was found? The room had been disrupted by Filomena picking up items which had glass fragments on top of them. So the investigative photos wouldn't necessarily show every part of the room as it was before it was entered by Filomena and the police.

So obviously there couldn't have been much glass on top of the clothes if it could be eliminated by one person quickly grabbing their laptop, could there? Glass on top of objects would be the natural position were the window broken, what made it of interest (to some) was the claim that the clothes hadn't been there before the break-in, thus the Polizia di Stato jumped to the conclusion it was evidence the room was ransacked before the window was broken.

But as I pointed out, there couldn't have been much glass if it couldn't be photographed later, so it wasn't widespread, it must have been pretty isolated. Being as you don't actually have glass on top of clothes, but an unsubstantiated report (where substantiation should have been easily obtained) of glass on top of clothes, just how much confidence do you have that there was glass on top of clothes in the first place? Now let's allow that there was some glass on top of clothes, what other possibilities are there outside that must indicate the window was broken after the clothes were thrown on the floor? First off the few clothes affected might have already been there, another possibility is that when rummaging around Rudy Guede kicked some of the glass around and some landed on the clothes, or he walked on them/stepped over them with glass on his shoes. Anyone else who went into that room, including Filomena, might have done the same.

Deosn't it reflect poorly on the prosecution claim that not only is there other explanations for glass being on top of clothes outside it being 'proof' the window was broken after the clothes were tossed, but that they couldn't even substantiate that claim with the numerous crime scene photos? Perhaps this also suggests that their witnesses to glass being on top of clothes were unreliable? Wouldn't a good definition of a baseless claim be one that doesn't actually lead to the conclusion it was supposed to and couldn't even be substantiated?

Very early in the investigation it was being reported in the journals that the police believed the break-in was simulated. I don't recall if there were specifics as to why this was thought.

I just happened to come across this page from "Darkness Descending." There Johnson and Russell say that the reasons the Polizia di Stato thought the break-in was staged were:

1. Glass on top of clothes.

2. They thought it impossible to throw a stone through the shutters in the position they were found in. (cringe)

3. The window would have required 'Spiderman' to access.

4. It wasn't the most logical point of entry.

Now, imagine for a moment there was no murder and Rudy Guede was on trial for burglarizing the cottage, evidence against him being that his DNA was found there and he'd recently been linked to a few burglaries in Perugia and Milan. His defense lawyer brings up these points in court to refute the prosecution claim that he burglarized the cottage. The prosecution shows a video of how easy it is to get in that window by using the rungs on the window below. They point out the position the shutters were found in the next day doesn't necessarily indicate their position when the rock was thrown. They make the same arguments regarding glass on top of clothes that I did, and they point out that for a person with athletic ability that window is not a difficult climb and it has certain advantages, and there's no requirement that burglars be logical in the first place.

Do you think those reasons given in "Darkness Descending" would be considered reasonable doubt that Rudy broke into the cottage? Do you think they could be considered proof that the break in was staged and that one or more of Filomena, Amanda or Laura should be arrested for staging a break-in?

 

[Kaosium]

The investigation under the incdente probatorio started in Nov. 2007 and anded in June 2008. The defence experts could ask whatever they wanted and they were granted access to the laboratory. But they didn't request not access the evidence. Only prof. Vinci came.

Everybody in the legal world in Italy knows that evidence documentation is performed discussed by parties during the incidente probatorio when this procedure is applied, while no scientific expert discussion is usually admitted at the trial.



Conti and Vecchiotti testified they had received all the documentation they had requested, and they praised the police forensics for being completely cooperative. They testified this on May 21. 2011.



Thse experts requested an extension because in May 2011 they made a further request of documentation, and it was to the Peugia Mobile squad (NOT Stefanoni's laboratory). It was not about the blade but about the police reports about the knife collection (which was prformed by the Perugia Mobile squad, not by the Rome forensics).



And so what? This means nothing. Vecchiotti and Conti made a series of requests, not just one. That one was only the last one.
And it was fulfilled.
Delays and shifting of terms are just the mst common of the common things in the Italian legal system, if this is what you complain about talking about Stefanoni, it's absolutely ridiculous.

The facts are, Vecchiotti praised Stefanoni for presenting her all the documentation she had requested.

By the way, you should also recall that there is independent evidence that Vecchiotti and Conti are liars, they cheated and lied in theor report and testimonies, don't forget that.



They noted they wanted the data from the tests that Vecchiotti was about to perform (that means the "new" samples tested by Vecchiotti, including trace "I")
There wasn't - and couldn't be in Vecchiotti's report - any defence request about the raw data from the tests performed by Stefanoni.



Absolutely not, and there is absolutely no lie. Comodi only made perfectly reasonable arguments, and anyway, if the defence didn't agree, they may well have explained the juge about their problem; the judge (judge Micheli in the first place) obviously recalled that the defence didn't request the data during the incdidente probatorio.



Chris Halkides may know what they told him.
The trial papers prove the defence didnt request the data until the end of the 2009 trial, and even then, they were not clear about wanting raw data and failed to explain the court what they wanted and why, and why they were unable to have them previously.



The SALs were released when they were requested.
They were released as the prosecution offered to release them - saying "yes" - only in 2009, precisely because the defence did not request this documentation during the investigation. And let's point out that prof. Potenza was there when the tests on luminol prints were done, and (testimony says) he assisted to the whole work till the end.



There is nothing to deny. There is simply nothing!
There is nothing in your "facts" that supports your wild allegations.

Machiavelli, we've done this before, there's nothing new here since the last time we went at it. If you need to refresh your memory or in the unlikely event anyone else would like to see your arguments engaged (again!) and your statements exposed for the dubious contentions or outright falsehoods they are, they can follow that link and read through a few pages.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli, we've done this before, there's nothing new here since the last time we went at it. If you need to refresh your memory or in the unlikely event anyone else would like to see your arguments engaged (again!) and your statements exposed for the dubious contentions or outright falsehoods they are, they can follow that link and read through a few pages.

Every once in a while, Machiavelli lets everyone peek behind his curtain (cf. reference to Wizard of Oz.)

You see, Machiavelli in that exchange in Nov 2014, actually floated the theory that the reason they did not want Conti & Vecchiotti to see all of Stefanoni's work is because Conti & Vecchiotti were known criminals:

I don't see any objection risen by the other parties experts, to tho specific request about C&V seeing data. If they wanted to object they would have objected, such as they did on the proposal to break the knife handle. But the point is the other parties don't want Conti e Vecchiotti to be involved in anything at all. It's not something about "this data". They were fundamentally objecting to the appointing of experts for further DNA tests. They object to the Hellmann-Zanetti court decision to order a perizia, they distrust the court and they distrust Conti and Vecchiotti. They don't wish Conti and Vecchiotti to have basically anything, they think Conti and Vecchiotti are criminals and they understand the trial has been hijacked and bribed.​

Thank you for that, quoted (quickly!) so it can be preserved for posterity.

So what is your evidence for these claims?

Now, to your point: if they distrusted Conti and Vecchiotti the very best response to that would to ensure that the edfs were made available to everyone. That way if Conti and Vecchiotti did try to 'cheat' they'd have the evidence publicly available to denounce them. Instead they chose not to join all the other scientists in asking that that data be made available, a very curious decision for innocent people thinking the trial has been 'hijacked.'

Oh, and Stefanoni did indeed 'object'--in fact she refused to supply the data despite it being formally asked for here and in the court document Charlie Wilkes posted that I recently quoted as well.

That's because she's hiding something Machiavelli, just like she tried to hide the existence of the 2-4 other male contributors to the clasp and the EDFs would show that same pattern of dishonesty with all the rest of the DNA work which would destroy the case against Raffaele and Amanda and probably land her in a prison cell as well.​

Every once in a while, Machiavelli advances his conspiracy theory a little bit further.

The 2-4 other male contributors to the bra-clasp..... these are the ones which Nencini de facto concedes are there, because he tries to account for who those profiles might belong to - and it is of tremendous importance for those extra ones to be there for no suspicious reasons. Yet in accounting for them, he assigns 2 of those unknown male contributors to being from "amica".

But getting back to Conti & Vecchiotti being criminals. Will Machiavelli ever answer if he believes the Presdient of the Appeals Court of Perugia, Wladimiro De Nunzio, to also be a criminal?

This needs to be quoted and requoted for posterity.​

And, indeed, Machiavelli eventually said that De Nunzio was a criminal, too.

 

[AmyStrange]

OPEN LETTER TO MACH

-

Dear Mach,

I personally believe that you honestly believe that Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda are guilty of Meredith's murder.

To me, any way, you seem like a good guy or gal, and I think (if we avoided this case, and maybe even if we didn't) I'd love to sit down with you and discuss Italian culture and history, and lots of other things, because I really do appreciate that you backed me up a couple of days ago.

Regardless of your intent, it was still a nice thing to do. Thank you.

But I have to admit the Star Wars reference was a bit over the top though. Ha ha.

My problem with your position is that you also claim that your belief is not based on confirmation bias.

Why then do you give unequal weight to the non-evidence of Rudy and Amanda?

I'd honestly like to know your reasoning behind that,

d

-
ETA: PM me if that's better for you. I give you my word it will remain private.

-

 

[Kauffer]

Wasn't the evidence, in part, the testimony of Filomena and the police officer(s) who entered the room before Meredith's body was found? The room had been disrupted by Filomena picking up items which had glass fragments on top of them. So the investigative photos wouldn't necessarily show every part of the room as it was before it was entered by Filomena and the police.

Very early in the investigation it was being reported in the journals that the police believed the break-in was simulated. I don't recall if there were specifics as to why this was thought.

The impetus for the staging theory was provided by Battistelli - shown around by Ms Knox - who in Romanelli's room, observed:

"... it was a little topsy-turvy, in the sense that it was mostly … There was clothing out, thrown around a bit, and scattered pieces of glass. Glass pieces were on the floor and the curious thing, which stood out for me, is that these glass pieces were on top of the clothing. I noticed this to the point where I started playing with the notion, in the sense that I immediately said that for me this was a simulation of what I was seeing, basically this…The things that I noticed, the camera, the computer, if they played into the theory of a hypothetical burglary, I saw that inside the house practically everything was there. There was a laptop, a digital camera, things that can be easily taken...."

This was before the body had been found.

Battistelli thought that what he had encountered was an attempt at insurance fraud. However, the main element of the insurance fraud theory - a fake burglary - was, implausibly sustained and carried over into the murder investigation even after Ms Kercher's body had been discovered and even though the insurance fraud theory had been rendered entirely obsolete.

Yet the thought disorder embraced by the the pro guilt community is to juxtapose and evaluate two entirely different scenarios as if they are identical.

They conclude that for:

1) Scenario 1 - A break-in without a murder that does not result in the theft of obviously valuable items easily accessible by a burglar, is strange.

However, they also conclude that for:

Scenario 2 - A break-in with a murder that does not result in the theft of obviously valuable items easily accessible by the burglar, is similarly strange.

Is it not glaringly obvious that as a burglar, my motivations and incentives have been utterly transformed in scenario 2? In Scenario 1, I was out for profit, my crime was common, the police are not highly motivated to find me and there is a relatively low risk of my being caught. In scenario 2, once I have committed the murder, I no longer care about a a laptop and a camera and what I might get for them; I care about getting as far away as possible as quickly as possible.

An attempted burglary resulting in murder is a profoundly different thing than the situation Battistelli thought he had found, yet the thinking about it didn't change.

 

[Numbers]

The impetus for the staging theory was provided by Battistelli - shown around by Ms Knox - who in Romanelli's room, observed:

"... it was a little topsy-turvy, in the sense that it was mostly … There was clothing out, thrown around a bit, and scattered pieces of glass. Glass pieces were on the floor and the curious thing, which stood out for me, is that these glass pieces were on top of the clothing. I noticed this to the point where I started playing with the notion, in the sense that I immediately said that for me this was a simulation of what I was seeing, basically this…The things that I noticed, the camera, the computer, if they played into the theory of a hypothetical burglary, I saw that inside the house practically everything was there. There was a laptop, a digital camera, things that can be easily taken...."

This was before the body had been found.

Battistelli thought that what he had encountered was an attempt at insurance fraud. However, the main element of the insurance fraud theory - a fake burglary - was, implausibly sustained and carried over into the murder investigation even after Ms Kercher's body had been discovered and even though the insurance fraud theory had been rendered entirely obsolete.

Yet the thought disorder embraced by the the pro guilt community is to juxtapose and evaluate two entirely different scenarios as if they are identical.

They conclude that for:

1) Scenario 1 - A break-in without a murder that does not result in the theft of obviously valuable items easily accessible by a burglar, is strange.

However, they also conclude that for:

Scenario 2 - A break-in with a murder that does not result in the theft of obviously valuable items easily accessible by the burglar, is similarly strange.

Is it not glaringly obvious that as a burglar, my motivations and incentives have been utterly transformed in scenario 2? In Scenario 1, I was out for profit, my crime was common, the police are not highly motivated to find me and there is a relatively low risk of my being caught. In scenario 2, once I have committed the murder, I no longer care about a a laptop and a camera and what I might get for them; I care about getting as far away as possible as quickly as possible.

An attempted burglary resulting in murder is a profoundly different thing than the situation Battistelli thought he had found, yet the thinking about it didn't change.

Your analysis of the origin of the staging theory seems correct to me.

What has happened to preserve it, in the minds of guilters but also in the judgment of the Nencini court, is the presumption of guilt directed toward Amanda Knox, and secondarily toward Raffaele Sollecito. Because Ms. Knox is presumed guilty, then circumstances of the crime must be adapted to demonstrate her guilt. Thus, she is claimed to have allowed access to the flat by Guede through the front door, since she is a key holder. There is no evidence to support this claim, but by wrongfully attributing the break-in by Guede to a staging, in a conclusory manner Ms. Knox must have been the stager. Thus, although there is no credible evidence that the break-in was staged, and no credible evidence relating Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito to the alleged staging or the actual break-in, the alleged "staged break-in" alleged to have been the work of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito becomes a "judicial fact".

It may be worthwhile to check the motivation reports of Guede's fast-track trial and its appeal for mention of the "staged break-in" and allegations of how Guede gained entry into the flat.

 

[Kauffer]

Mark Waterbury? Than name rings a very loud bell.



****/Golly

Is he the source of Numbers and planigale's confusion also?
Don’t you guys have any original nonsensical arguments?

Let me guess – he has a section on ECHR rulings also?
Or is that just random C&P’ ing. Hard to tell.


ps If I say so myself the last line from the 2nd link is prescient in the extreme.

Mark Waterbury references "Locard's exchange principle".

"Locard's Exchange Principle states that with contact between two items, there will always be an exchange. This is the basis of trace evidence collection at a crime scene."

https://suite.io/karen-lotter/nek2ah

Yet there is nothing of Amanda Knox in Meredith Kercher's bedroom and you, like all the others, cannot explain why.

Nor can you explain, how Mr Sollecito's DNA could have been deposited on Ms Kercher's bra clasp (as part of a mixed sample) unless it was the product of contamination, since there is no trace of him anywhere else in the room. Did he swoop down from on high, flapping his invisible wings perhaps? Could he really be, as Bongiorno amusingly suggested, a dragonfly?

Similarly, you cannot explain the lack of transfer evidence from the crime scene on Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito's clothes or at Mr Sollecito's apartment.

Yet for Guede, Ms Kercher's room has multiple sources of time stamped evidence. Not only that, he left glass from Romanelli's room in one of his bloody shoe prints in Ms Kercher's.

 

[Dan O.]

Yes. This link:

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/...va_suo_assassino_Trovate_co_9_071104164.shtml

It's like putting the cart before the hourse. The staging is a necessary consequence of the assailant being an acquaintance that was let in through the front door. Where they don't have tangible documentation supporting the staging they will backfill with oral testimony.

Memories are fragile and easily manipulated. Battistelli says he initially thought the breakin was staged. But unles this was contemporaneously recorded there is no way to tell if those thoughts actually preceeded the theory or if they were a recreation to fit the theory.

 

[Samson]

The only question remaining, then, is why is Machiavelli (and others) arguing it now!

Aren't they supposed to have won on all the stuff which was cited by either Massei, Nencini or the findings of fact as found by Cassazione?

Bill,
Future generations will contemplate, but Pyrrhic victory came to mind, so consulting wikipedia, I found these quotes.

"The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders;"

and

"Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, commented on the necessity of coercion in preserving the course of justice by warning, "Moral reason must learn how to make coercion its ally without running the risk of a Pyrrhic victory in which the ally exploits and negates the triumph." "

and

"Also, in Beauharnais v. Illinois, a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a charge proscribing group libel, Justice Hugo Black alluded to the Pyrrhic War in his dissent: "If minority groups hail this holding as their victory, they might consider the possible relevancy of this ancient remark: 'Another such victory and I am undone.'" "

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

 

[anglolawyer]

Platonov

You have lowered in my estimation. First, you ran away from the glass pattern argument and then you mock Mark Waterbury, who wrote an excellent book on this case with much to learn from. You are much better at cryptic piss-taking and, if you will take advice from a foe, I respectfully suggest you stick to it.

Anglo

ETA you haven't read his book, have you?

 

[Desert Fox]

Expert testimony
It’s not testimony, its a blog of some sort.
And [as the links show] he’s not an expert.
He’s a moron* OR he takes his readers/fans for morons.

*That’s probably too harsh – he may have mental health issues.

You do understand that you are on a skeptics board, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]

 

[anglolawyer]

Here's a validation issue and a test lab integrity issue.

Something strange - a malfunction or a malpractice (cheating) was happening with Stefanoni's Real Time PCR quantification equipment.

So she changed over to the Qubit, which is a very different, and less accurate device using an interpolation over only two points to quantify DNA concentration. (RT-PCR uses 6 points, IIRC). She found that a number of sample registered "too low" on the Qubit - meaning the Qubit could not truly give an accurate concentration value for the sample, perhaps there was no DNA in the sample at all. Note that the Qubit and RT-PCR have as an inescapable artifact a certain level of noise in their measurement, which is more readily discerned from signal (of real DNA) in RT-PCR than for the Qubit.

Now Stefanoni tested by DNA profiling and reported on some of the "too low" samples, tested by DNA profiling and did not report on many other "too low" samples, and apparently did not test some other "too low" DNA samples.

The sample from the knife blade, alleged to contain Meredith Kercher's DNA, was one of the samples quantified as "too low" on the Qubit, concentrated by vacuum pump (which can introduce contamination into a sample), and then DNA profiled and reported. And there were similar samples* mysteriously not reported. Why? Because the sample reported somehow showed Meredith's DNA, and others did not?

ETA: *from the knife blade

I see the lab integrity part here but not the validation part. Is it that the Qubit fluorometer has not been validated for use with low template DNA?

 

[carbonjam72]

Origins of the 'staged break-in'...

The impetus for the staging theory was provided by Battistelli - shown around by Ms Knox - who in Romanelli's room, observed: "... it was a little topsy-turvy, in the sense that it was mostly … There was clothing out, thrown around a bit, and scattered pieces of glass. Glass pieces were on the floor and the curious thing, which stood out for me, is that these glass pieces were on top of the clothing. I noticed this to the point where I started playing with the notion, in the sense that I immediately said that for me this was a simulation of what I was seeing, basically this…The things that I noticed, the camera, the computer, if they played into the theory of a hypothetical burglary, I saw that inside the house practically everything was there. There was a laptop, a digital camera, things that can be easily taken...."
This was before the body had been found.

Battistelli thought that what he had encountered was an attempt at insurance fraud. However, the main element of the insurance fraud theory - a fake burglary - was, implausibly sustained and carried over into the murder investigation even after Ms Kercher's body had been discovered and even though the insurance fraud theory had been rendered entirely obsolete.

Yet the thought disorder embraced by the the pro guilt community is to juxtapose and evaluate two entirely different scenarios as if they are identical.

They conclude that for:

1) Scenario 1 - A break-in without a murder that does not result in the theft of obviously valuable items easily accessible by a burglar, is strange.

However, they also conclude that for:

Scenario 2 - A break-in with a murder that does not result in the theft of obviously valuable items easily accessible by the burglar, is similarly strange.

Is it not glaringly obvious that as a burglar, my motivations and incentives have been utterly transformed in scenario 2? In Scenario 1, I was out for profit, my crime was common, the police are not highly motivated to find me and there is a relatively low risk of my being caught. In scenario 2, once I have committed the murder, I no longer care about a a laptop and a camera and what I might get for them; I care about getting as far away as possible as quickly as possible.

An attempted burglary resulting in murder is a profoundly different thing than the situation Battistelli thought he had found, yet the thinking about it didn't change.

Numbers: Your analysis of the origin of the staging theory seems correct to me.

What has happened to preserve it, in the minds of guilters but also in the judgment of the Nencini court, is the presumption of guilt directed toward Amanda Knox, and secondarily toward Raffaele Sollecito. Because Ms. Knox is presumed guilty, then circumstances of the crime must be adapted to demonstrate her guilt. Thus, she is claimed to have allowed access to the flat by Guede through the front door, since she is a key holder. There is no evidence to support this claim, but by wrongfully attributing the break-in by Guede to a staging, in a conclusory manner Ms. Knox must have been the stager. Thus, although there is no credible evidence that the break-in was staged, and no credible evidence relating Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito to the alleged staging or the actual break-in, the alleged "staged break-in" alleged to have been the work of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito becomes a "judicial fact".

It may be worthwhile to check the motivation reports of Guede's fast-track trial and its appeal for mention of the "staged break-in" and allegations of how Guede gained entry into the flat.

DANO: It's like putting the cart before the hourse. The staging is a necessary consequence of the assailant being an acquaintance that was let in through the front door. Where they don't have tangible documentation supporting the staging they will backfill with oral testimony.

Memories are fragile and easily manipulated. Battistelli says he initially thought the breakin was staged. But unles this was contemporaneously recorded there is no way to tell if those thoughts actually preceeded the theory or if they were a recreation to fit the theory.

Concerning Kauffer's quote from Battistelli, is that from court testimony, or from his contemporaneous statements taken at that time? As DANO points out, B's later testimony could well be shaded by a shared story, and well rehearsed by Mignini in preparation for trial.

I do not believe that Mignini played no role in shaping the false theory that the 'break-in was staged'.

While the version here, that it was Bat's detective work on the spot that generated this bogus claim, and that it somehow got adopted and stuck in their later evaluations, is AN explanation, but not necessarily THE explanation.

There are many other elements that are simply ignored in this view; such as

-whether the police recognized Rudy's MO at the break-in (Nencini and Steve Moore say yes)

- Whether the polcei were familiar with Guede before the Kercher killing (Nencini and Moore say yes, Moore says Guede was a police informant and refers to the Milan incident where Perugia authorities called Milan to get Guede released and sent back on train to perugia 5 days befroe he killed Meredith; Napoleone in trial testimony says Guede was known to police as a burglar in Perugia)

- Whether police were aware Guede had been linked to a virtually identical method of B&E two weeks earlier in Perugia (Rudy had been caught in Milan with computer and cell phone from a law office break-in with a rock through a window and second story metal grating assisted climb-up, AND, Rudy went to the law office on Oct 29? to try to explain to the lawyers that he hadn't broken into their offices, but merely innocently bought their goods at a flea market)

- That the police account fo their reasons for believing the 'break-in' was staged, are in fact put forward in good faith. ( I assert their lies are "directional", and designed to lead away from Guede - i.e., covering the body is a "female gesture", when its well known to be a 'novice gesture - almost always male).

That Mignini and Giobbi weren't specifically looking for a satanic conspiracy, or "serious crime" (Mignini desperately needed to deflect public attention away from his own criminal case and professional failings by banking a high profile win, and Giobbi was with the "serious crimes unit", so if its not a "serious crime" - mafia, terrorism, serial killer, - then why is he even there?)

Everyone seems to agree that police singled out Amanda and Raf to blame for the crime, and framed them with false shoddy evidence, bogus witnesses, suppressed and destroyed exculpatory evidence, and perjury on the witness stand.

If all that other evidence of 'framing' is true, then why is everyone so hell bent on assuming this all came about from an honest mistake by a postal policeman pretending to be Sherlock Holmes?

So yes, "It all came from BAT", is A theory.

But I would argue, "It all came from MIG", is a better one, that more comprehensively and consistently fits all the known facts. And in this way, is a quantifiably better theory.

 

[Numbers]

I see the lab integrity part here but not the validation part. Is it that the Qubit fluorometer has not been validated for use with low template DNA?

Yes. And it's being used out-of-range. ETA: Was it validated for within range DNA work? Validation is not optional in a forensic lab. Same as for a device used in surgery, or in an airplane; you must have assurance that equipment is fit for purpose.

Suppose you try to measure the temperature inside the turkey (or other meat) you're cooking for Thanksgiving (or whenever) and the meat thermometer reading is "cannot record temperature...out-of-range"....would you then go ahead and immediately begin use of that food, as though it had been thoroughly cooked? That is a rough analogy.

Stefanoni did "compensate" for the "too low" by concentrating the remaining sample, but she would have no way to know what concentration was finally achieved. And the method for concentration uses a vacuum pump which can introduce contamination. And she did not treat all the samples that were "too low" the same way. She was, from a scientific POV, arbitrary. She was suspect-centered in her approach, an obviously incorrect methodology which tends to generate erroneous results.