Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

I know who I am talking about. The other Patrizia Stefanoni is 57 year old medical doctor. I am talking about Patrizia Stefanoni who appeared in an article, with references to Scientific police, photo and everything. I am talking about Patrizia Stefanoni who used to publish scientific research articles on Genetics with the University of Naples since the nineties.

Oh, you mean Patricia stefanoni, the profile suppressor.

You are I obviously confusing the word "professor" with "suppressor"

 

[Bill Williams]

I know who I am talking about. The other Patrizia Stefanoni is 57 year old medical doctor. I am talking about Patrizia Stefanoni who appeared in an article, with references to Scientific police, photo and everything. I am talking about Patrizia Stefanoni who used to publish scientific research articles on Genetics with the University of Naples since the nineties.

The biggest mystery is why you don't simply supply a link and end this discussion. Makes me believe you cannot.

 

[Bill Williams]

First, there has been indeed one Sollecito's consultant who hinted at contamination from Knox's DNA on the clasp.
Second, but more important, the Y profile chart was available to Sollecito's defence since before the beginning of October 2008, if we believe Bongiorno when she said, on Oct. 4., that the defence had finally managed to obtain the charts the requested.
There was a defence report submitted on Oct.24. about that.
But then there was a subsequent request, from Prof. Pascali to the judge, by which he requested to have also the electronic data files, that he called "log files". Stefanoni answered to the judge saying she was ready to make the electronic data files available to the defence just like she did with the image files, but she put the condition that basically can only be interpreted as follows: that the defence would analyse those data files through the same computer, software and settings ("parameters") that the Scientific Police used, which implies: analyze them in her laboratory or under their supervision.
So Stefanoni said yes to this request too, she only put a condition on this.
After that, the judge decided the data were not indispensable to his decision, and the defence did not go forward with their request (they didn't go to the lab).

Thanks for this. For one thing, you've outlined the mechanics of the way Stefanoni tried to control things.......

But more importantly even you are now a long way into a narrative which proves Stefanoni withheld the EDFs after you claimed for years she had not.

Now it would be good to attempt a narrative for the whole crime itself which challenges AK's and RS's innocence. You still claim a narrative for that is unnecessary.

 

[Numbers]

No, not by the prosecution and its experts, but after an examination by the experts of the parties. The incidente probatorio is not an prosecution-lead test, it is an adversarial procedure. It can be opened upon a request of the parties. But then is carried on under art.360 cpp.

CPP Art. 507, Admission of new evidence

1. Upon completion of evidence gathering, the judge may order, ex officio, the admission of new means of evidence, if absolutely necessary.

CPP Art. 493 Requests for evidence

2. The admission of evidence that is not included in the list provided for in Art. 468 is allowed if the requesting party proves he has not been able to specify them in the list at the due time.

 

[Diocletus]

First, there has been indeed one Sollecito's consultant who hinted at contamination from Knox's DNA on the clasp.
Second, but more important, the Y profile chart was available to Sollecito's defence since before the beginning of October 2008, if we believe Bongiorno when she said, on Oct. 4., that the defence had finally managed to obtain the charts the requested.
There was a defence report submitted on Oct.24. about that.
But then there was a subsequent request, from Prof. Pascali to the judge, by which he requested to have also the electronic data files, that he called "log files". Stefanoni answered to the judge saying she was ready to make the electronic data files available to the defence just like she did with the image files, but she put the condition that basically can only be interpreted as follows: that the defence would analyse those data files through the same computer, software and settings ("parameters") that the Scientific Police used, which implies: analyze them in her laboratory or under their supervision.
So Stefanoni said yes to this request too, she only put a condition on this.
After that, the judge decided the data were not indispensable to his decision, and the defence did not go forward with their request (they didn't go to the lab).

Who the hell cares what "conditions" stefanoni put on the use of the data that she was using to incriminate the defendants?

 

[carbonjam72]

I remind that one of the points where I have proven you wrong, is exactly the impossibility - on your part and on the part of the pro-Knox supporters - to build a reasonable sequence of Guede acting alone, without contradicting the physical evidence.

I point out that nobody was able to solve points of inconsistency of the Guede alone scenario, such as the timing of his trampling over the pillow (to be made consistent with the timing of the semen stain and the placing of the pillow undr the body). The alleged washing-his-trousers under the shower without dripping around or his not leaving a trace of blood shoeprints through his alleged turning at the front door and walking back to Meredith's room, and the absence of evidence of that; or the bruises pointing to sexual violence committed when the victim still had a good blood pressure; the absence of any trace of touching the victim's body with bloody hands; these are just other examples.

Weren't there diluted blood drops leading outside to the downstairs apartment, and inside the downstairs apartment.
Although claimed as 'cats blood', the profiles did come back as human DNA, including two from a light switch (not a popular destination for cats), but all those DNA profiles from downstairs were suppressed.

There's a difference of opinion as to whether Guede went downstairs after he killed Meredith, I believe he did, others do not.

Also, IIRC, there was never a species specific blood test to determine if the 'cats' blood was in fact from a cat. Also, if it was this cat with a gushing gash to its ear (excuse me, but highly unlikely), it would be useful to test the blood DNA found, with DNA analysis from the cat hair to ascertain if they have in fact truly matched the cat in question.

I'm not suggeting there could be multiple cats responsible, nor if so, that they were in any way involved in the crime.

 

[carbonjam72]

Who the hell cares what "conditions" stefanoni put on the use of the data that she was using to incriminate the defendants?

Yeah, pretty weird. Couldn't she just make a copy on a CD and give it to them? She had the originals, its not like they could alter anything.

Does anyone else get the feeling that 'real police' should just break into the Italian police headquarters and round up the lot of them?

 

[Bill Williams]

Who the hell cares what "conditions" stefanoni put on the use of the data that she was using to incriminate the defendants?

After years of saying Stefanoni did not withhold data, Machiavelli now confirms she did, and further gives the reason why. Amazing.

 

[carbonjam72]

OK this is slightly technical but important. Stefanoni implies that epithelials are synonymous with 'skin' and this implies touch. As a biologist she probably knew this was a partial truth. Epithelial applies to the outer covering of an animal. The origin is embryological, as memory serves we devlop from a three layered blastocele, a hollow ball the outer layer becomes epithelium. The inner endothelium and the middle mesothelium - essentially all the filler stuff like muscle, cartilage bone. For the purposes of anatomy the gut and lungs are external surfaces, as is the bladder. Epithelial cells can arise from any of these sources. The best source is mucosa say the lining of the mouth (still epithelial), which is why mouth washes and cheek swabs are used inDNA tests. Tears may contain epithelial cells from the covering of the eye, phlegm when coughed up is full of epithelials from the airways, spit has epithelials from the mouth. In general shed skin e.g. from hands is a poor source of DNA, in becoming the hard waterproof outer layer we call skin it becomes keratinised, full of tough protein, the same stuff nails and claws and hair is made of. At the same time the nuclear material - DNA - is digested apoptosis, so shed skin cells are dead and contain little analysable DNA. Thus if Sollecito sneezed in the bathroom where the bra was hanging up to dry he would have deposited epithelials. Epithelials do NOT imply touch.

Thanks for the basic biology lesson P. I wonder if I could have googled this without asking? I'm worried about this instant information thing we live with nowadays. Takes all the fun out of stupid bar room trivia games and the like. Everyone has this weird augmented semi-reliable google brain, terribly homogenizing, IUAM.

 

[Diocletus]

Yeah, pretty weird. Couldn't she just make a copy on a CD and give it to them? She had the originals, its not like they could alter anything.

Does anyone else get the feeling that 'real police' should just break into the Italian police headquarters and round up the lot of them?

She was clearly scared to death that they would be able to closely analyze her data. There are so many problems with the limited set if data that she did produce, that there can be no doubt that the production of the raw data would have been a train wreck.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Vinci on the clasp; YSTR tables versus egrams

First, there has been indeed one Sollecito's consultant who hinted at contamination from Knox's DNA on the clasp.
Second, but more important, the Y profile chart was available to Sollecito's defence since before the beginning of October 2008, if we believe Bongiorno when she said, on Oct. 4., that the defence had finally managed to obtain the charts the requested.
There was a defence report submitted on Oct.24. about that.

There is a press report from 2008 in which Vinci said words to the effect (and I am paraphrasing) that even if Amanda's DNA were on the clasp, it would be immaterial, because the clasp was contaminated. Therefore, it is only by mightily twisting his words does one obtain a suggesting that Amanda's DNA was actually there.

The Y profile chart is not the same as the electropherogram, which is not the same as the electronic data files. Stefanoni unjustifiably left the extra contributors out of her table.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is a press report from 2008 in which Vinci said words to the effect (and I am paraphrasing) that even if Amanda's DNA were on the clasp, it would be immaterial, because the clasp was contaminated. Therefore, it is only by mightily twisting his words does one obtain a suggesting that Amanda's DNA was actually there.

The Y profile chart is not the same as the electropherogram, which is not the same as the electronic data files. Stefanoni unjustifiably left the extra contributors out of her table.

Maybe Stefanoni feared one of the Y-profiles was her own!!!!!!!

 

[Dan O.]

Maybe Stefanoni feared one of the Y-profiles was her own!!!!!!!

She wouldn't have the balls to reach such a conclusion.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks for this. For one thing, you've outlined the mechanics of the way Stefanoni tried to control things.......

But more importantly even you are now a long way into a narrative which proves Stefanoni withheld the EDFs after you claimed for years she had not.

Now it would be good to attempt a narrative for the whole crime itself which challenges AK's and RS's innocence. You still claim a narrative for that is unnecessary.

Rather the contrary. I think this shows:
1. Pascali submitted his request on Oct. 27., that is only after Bongiorno stated that all defence requests were fulfilled.
2. Stefanoni said "yes" to Pascali's request to see the EDFs (any claim that she refused to do so is false)
3. The Sollecito's defence however did not go forward following the opportunity to see the EDFs, presumably because they didn't like the terms of Stefanoni's conditions; anyway they didn't give course to any other request.
4. The defences, their PRs, Halkides and the pro-Knoxes never mentioned Stefanoni's letter where she says "yes"; they always maintained a campaign where this letter saying "yes" and indicating conditions was something completely removed. They were dead silent about this Stefanoni's offer.

 

[Bill Williams]

Rather the contrary. I think this shows:
1. Pascali submitted his request on Oct. 27., that is only after Bongiorno stated that all defence requests were fulfilled.
2. Stefanoni said "yes" to Pascali's request to see the EDFs (any claim that she refused to do so is false)
3. The Sollecito's defence however did not go forward following the opportunity to see the EDFs, presumably because they didn't like the terms of Stefanoni's conditions; anyway they didn't give course to any other request.
4. The defences, their PRs, Halkides and the pro-Knoxes never mentioned Stefanoni's letter where she says "yes"; they always maintained a campaign where this letter saying "yes" and indicating conditions was something completely removed. They were dead silent about this Stefanoni's offer.

I realize you think this is what it shows.

What you are missing is describing what it actually shows, without the spin.

 

[Machiavelli]

There is a press report from 2008 in which Vinci said words to the effect (and I am paraphrasing) that even if Amanda's DNA were on the clasp, it would be immaterial, because the clasp was contaminated. Therefore, it is only by mightily twisting his words does one obtain a suggesting that Amanda's DNA was actually there.

The Y profile chart is not the same as the electropherogram, which is not the same as the electronic data files. Stefanoni unjustifiably left the extra contributors out of her table.

Giulia Bongiorno admitted quite clearly on Oct. 4. 2008 they they had obtained what they had requested. But iirc she only puts forward another request, that is that they will like to know information about the peaks areas. She doesn't mention having requested "electronic" data or raw data (all what she says is charts would have been ok, that's what you can understand from her argument).
As for the subsequent request by Pascali on Oct. 27., see above.

 

[Machiavelli]

Who the hell cares what "conditions" stefanoni put on the use of the data that she was using to incriminate the defendants?

Who cares if the pro-Knoxes tell the truth or if they lie? If this is what you are saying by your statement above, that's correct.

 

[LondonJohn]

I realize you think this is what it shows.

What you are missing is describing what it actually shows, without the spin.

Haha yes. What it actually says in its subtext is this:

"This guy has all he needs. If he's asking for more then he is flying in the face of "accepted" practice. Furthermore, what he's asking for can only be of relevance if he thinks I have lied (and I beseech you, your honour ). But anyhow, because I'm so decent - and in spite of the horrific implied besmirching of my reputation and that of the Italian State Police - of course I'll give him what he's asking for if you (judge) insist that I do (but under impossible-to-fulfill conditions)."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stefanoni basically said, my way or the highway

Stefanoni answered to the judge saying she was ready to make the electronic data files available to the defence just like she did with the image files, but she put the condition that basically can only be interpreted as follows: that the defence would analyse those data files through the same computer, software and settings ("parameters") that the Scientific Police used, which implies: analyze them in her laboratory or under their supervision.
So Stefanoni said yes to this request too, she only put a condition on this.
After that, the judge decided the data were not indispensable to his decision, and the defence did not go forward with their request (they didn't go to the lab).

Machiavelli,

Thank you for being clear about the rot at the center of this case. It is for these sorts of reasons that the defense needs to have unfettered access to the electronic data. As an anonymous DNA forensic expert speaking about paper copies of the DNA forensic data said, “Certain parameters have irrevocably been applied to the data; as such it represents an interpretation by the laboratory rather than the original data.” A defendant should have the right to see and to challenge the evidence against him or her, and that principle is at risk in the Knox/Sollecito case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

did they forget to say "pretty please?"

Giulia Bongiorno admitted quite clearly on Oct. 4. 2008 they they had obtained what they had requested. But iirc she only puts forward another request, that is that they will like to know information about the peaks areas. She doesn't mention having requested "electronic" data or raw data (all what she says is charts would have been ok, that's what you can understand from her argument).
As for the subsequent request by Pascali on Oct. 27., see above.

Machiavelli,

Ms. Bongiorno addressed the court about the lack of discovery in late 2009. But look at what you have just admitted. Nearly a year into the case, and the defense has to ask for the peak areas? It is remarkable that the data were not produced with this sort of information easily available.