Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

You may well be right. Sollecitos DNA wasn't found in his car and only in a few samples from his appartment.

Greetings

You seem to be confused between "wasn't found" and "wasn't there".

 

[Dougm]

So Giacomo Silenzio's couldn't be bothered to procure his own condoms? A first class Italian gentleman, huh?

Since he also refused to acknowledge Meredith out in public, he seems like the perfect example of who a nice girl like Meredith should be with.

And Amanda and Raffaele are obviously terrible people who should be suspected of crimes because they ...

Oh wait.

 

[Diocletus]

Since he also refused to acknowledge Meredith out in public, he seems like the perfect example of who a nice girl like Meredith should be with.

And Amanda and Raffaele are obviously terrible people who should be suspected of crimes because they ...

Oh wait.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is more of a connection between giacomo and Rudy than we know. I think Giacomo bears a healthy portion of the blame for Kerchers death and the wrongful conviction of Knox and Sollecito

 

[Numbers]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is more of a connection between giacomo and Rudy than we know. I think Giacomo bears a healthy portion of the blame for Kerchers death and the wrongful conviction of Knox and Sollecito

I have wondered if Giacomo or one of the other boys from downstairs had told Rudy Guede that they would be away over the holiday.

 

[Kauffer]

The latest from Maresca and the Kerchers reported today:

“Meredith’s family hope that the sentence is upheld and the law is carried out to its fullest extent,” said Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing the family. “If that means extradition for Knox, that’s what they want.”


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4389752.ece

 

[MDDVS]

Peter Gill lives in a strange world where one leaves a trail of his DNA as one proceed on one's routine, minute by minute.
DNA is left on exceptional moments, they are the exception.
DNA is not deposited on contact, it is torn away from oneself on shock-contacts at few moments of our lives.

You're completely wrong. But I admire your courage(?) in trying to teach DNA science to Peter Gill.

What you write is so laughably wrong that it's impossible to me to tell if you're being serious but very ignorant or if you're just trying to funny.

 

[Diocletus]

The latest from Maresca and the Kerchers reported today:

“Meredith’s family hope that the sentence is upheld and the law is carried out to its fullest extent,” said Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing the family. “If that means extradition for Knox, that’s what they want.”


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4389752.ece

It would seem appropriate for them to at least wait until the decision on Wednesday before issuing such a statement, but I suppose that propriety has never been their strong suit.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

contamination and sample mix-ups are uncommon, but hardly rare

This doesn't make sense, the correct wording is:

After 46 days during which everybody and everything entered that room, how could that clasp not be dirty/dusty(if you wish)?

Contamination is a rare process, one star among billions. The logic above is like saying, "I'm a young beautiful teenage girl, how come for my 18th birthday i haven't received a love letter from a celebrity actor.

This comment is fantasy. Try telling it to Ms. P., Mr. N, Adam Scott, Farah Jama, Lukis Anderson, Gregory Turner, Russell Gesah, or Gary Leiterman for starters. Some of them have spent months or years behind bars on the basis of contamination. Some time ago I found a quote that came from a forensic technician in Australia. He said something along the lines of "Well I have just committed another rape on the Gold Coast." This does not make contamination sound rare to me.

 

[NancyS]

The latest from Maresca and the Kerchers reported today:

“Meredith’s family hope that the sentence is upheld and the law is carried out to its fullest extent,” said Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing the family. “If that means extradition for Knox, that’s what they want.”

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4389752.ece

As always Maresca is doing his best to help the family keep a dignified silence

 

[Diocletus]

I have wondered if Giacomo or one of the other boys from downstairs had told Rudy Guede that they would be away over the holiday.

My feeling is:

The boys downstairs "introduced" Rudy to the cottage and the girls.

I think that Rudy knew the boys downstairs were gone.

I think that Rudy felt comfortable enough that he went downstairs and changed into giacomo's pants after the murder

The boys downstairs knew very well that a cat didn't bleed and mess up the downstairs, but let themselves be cowed by the prosecution.

The whole crew was the opposite of honor bound if you ask me.

 

[lonepinealex]

My feeling is:

The boys downstairs "introduced" Rudy to the cottage and the girls.

I think that Rudy knew the boys downstairs were gone.

I think that Rudy felt comfortable enough that he went downstairs and changed into giacomo's pants after the murder

The boys downstairs knew very well that a cat didn't bleed and mess up the downstairs, but let themselves be cowed by the prosecution.

The whole crew was the opposite of honor bound if you ask me.

Yep, this makes a lot of sense, and there's something very fishy about what happened downstairs. The boys in that apartment must have been shut up somehow. Has any of them publicly corroborated the bleeding cat story?

 

[Bill Williams]

We are not talking about odds of contamination in general. We are talking about a specific allege occurrence, that is an alleged contamination event with one specific contaminating agent (one specific profile, not just any DNA) on one specific small location.
What matters is not a probability of generic contamination, but the chances of that specificity.
And not only that: also there is no need to have probability as small as a one-to millions ratio in order to have a piece of evidence. Even 1:10 would be sufficiently small to rule it out from the set or reasonable scenario when combined with other circumstantial evidence. In order to dismiss the piece of evidence you would need to show that that contamination was probable, not that it was just possible. And the burden to show that is on those claims that event occurred.

In the case of the bra clasp, there were multiple profiles not one specific profile. Did they all belong to people who were in the room when the murder was committed?
The were plenty of opportunities for contamination to have taken place, including via CSI's gloves. Yet the burden lies with the prosecution to demonstrate that the collection, transportation, storage and testing of samples were made according to international guidelines.

In this case, just from what we know, which is far from everything, these standards were not met. Additionally, the defence, in law, has the right to comprehensive discovery of all laboratory records including electronic data files, but the lack of discovery in this case - indeed the active lobbying of the court by Stefanoni to prevent that discovery - is not only illegal, but indicative that the laboratory had something or things to hide.

Furthermore, you should examine art 192 (2) of the CCP. The supposed finding of Ms Kercher's profile on the knife should never have been admitted. I would argue that the same applies to claims about the bra clasp. Neither piece represents, serious, precise or consistent evidence.

Your question, Kauffer, should be enough to blow out of the water any confidence that the bra-clasp Sample 165B has anything to do with the murder. This is one, unitary sample, with many identities on it. Even Judge Nencini tried to account for those identities (plural).

What this is, is a battle for context. Both convicting courts, Massei's and Nencini's, succumb to a suspect-centric evaluation: they claim that they are not, but they are. In fairness to Machiavelli, he's not inventing the suspect-centric nature of the convictions, he's just passing it on, as per the highlighted part above.

It is short-hand for, "Raffaele found, Raffaele guilty," regardless of the overall context of how sample 165B got on the hooks.....



.... even before showing that Stefanoni herself is photographed by her own people handling the hooks of the bra-clasp.

Everyone should read page 236ff. of the Massei report where he first addresses the issue of why Stefanoni, herself in his opinion, did not do a suspect-centred DNA analysis. It has to do with her explanation of why peaks below 50 RFU can be seen as stutter, but peaks above 50 RFU are not necessarily alleles - technically correct.

Massei then wanders into Stefanoni's remarks about "bench contamination", which she says is, "possible but quite rare." Stefanoni also defends doing only one test - when protocols call for two tests - claiming that the first result was definitive.

Massei loses track of the criticism of Stefanoni's work as being "suspect-centric" through all this, until having to deal with Professor Tagliabracci's criticisms, which Massei does on page 256:

Professor Tagliabracci then maintained that this suspect-centric method was
detectible in Dr. Stefanoni’s report and presentation because, he affirmed, it was a case of ‚forcing the profile obtained < eliminating or leaving out alleles solely for the purpose of making that profile compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s profile‛(page 51). He pointed out, also, that interpreting a peak as an allele or as noise
results in the identification of a different profile. He then indicated, in the
electropherogram, various peaks which were considered noise whereas they ought
to have been considered alleles, and specified that ‚this is especially so for locus
D21S11 (page 55), where there was a peak present whose height exceeded the 15%
that constitutes the threshold between noise and allele. This peak’s height is 15.8%
with respect to the reference allele, he added, and therefore could not be considered
as noise (page 56); on the contrary, the Forensics service considered it was noise, and
242
this in had given rise to a genetic profile that leads to compatibility with that of
Raffaele Sollecito which, otherwise, would not have been the case (page 57).​

Forensics [la Polizia
Scientifica] did not, however, consider this to be the case; instead, they considered
the 65 RFU peak to be an allele and observed that, in this way, a compatibility with
Raffaele Sollecito’s profile resulted, which otherwise would not have been the case
(page 59). With reference to this, Professor Tagliabracci repeated that there was a
forced interpretation, which was typical of a suspect-centric attitude (page 60).​

How does Judge Massei resolve this in his 2010 report? Massei raises the issue that it could be resolved by the appointment of an independent DNA analyst, by saying that even with the appointment of an independent analyst it still would be the court's decision on who to believe.

According to Massei, all an independent analyst could do is side with Stefanoni or the defence consultant - and, again acc. to Massei, the court would be no further along.

Massei's illogical rationalization of this is on pages 319-320 of his report.

Because rather than actually come to a conclusion about the charge of a "suspect-centric" analysis, Massei defers to the probability of the Raffaele-DNA (being part of 165B) actually being Raffaele's and not someone else, someone who shares Raffaele's profile. (See Machiavelli's parroting of this above!)

With reference to Stefanoni's demonstrable suspect-centric analysis, Massei, in essence, just drops the discussion in his own report - after he, himself brought it up. After he himself articulates Professor Tagliabracci's objections.....

...... which could have been resolved by independent DNA analysis, like Judge Hellmann ordered at the next trial!!

And, of course, we know what happened with the Conti-Vecchiotti report which was presented to the second trial. They are called criminals in this very thread on ISF, simply because they, in essence, agreed with Professor Tagliabracci from the first trial.

 

[Diocletus]

Yep, this makes a lot of sense, and there's something very fishy about what happened downstairs. The boys in that apartment must have been shut up somehow. Has any of them publicly corroborated the bleeding cat story?

They testified generally to some nondescript, non bleeding wound on the cats ear. I don't think any of them believed the blood was from the cat, though.

 

[carbonjam72]

The latest from Maresca and the Kerchers reported today:

“Meredith’s family hope that the sentence is upheld and the law is carried out to its fullest extent,” said Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing the family. “If that means extradition for Knox, that’s what they want.”


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4389752.ece

You haven't seen the full article by any chance? I get a paywall with only that gem from Maresca.

 

[carbonjam72]

Where lies Blame?

My feeling is:

The boys downstairs "introduced" Rudy to the cottage and the girls.

I think that Rudy knew the boys downstairs were gone.

I think that Rudy felt comfortable enough that he went downstairs and changed into giacomo's pants after the murder
The boys downstairs knew very well that a cat didn't bleed and mess up the downstairs, but let themselves be cowed by the prosecution.

The whole crew was the opposite of honor bound if you ask me.

Is there any testimony on this point? I thought I saw it somewhere. Rudy borrowing pants form downstairs).

Also, I think first of all, this is Rudy's crime. I can't blame people for being betrayed by Rudy.

Giacomo may be no gentleman in other cultural contexts, but apart from being open to people his own age, where is his crime?

It's also i think hard to blame people for being cowed by Mignini, psychotic mad bully that he is. There are limits to what people can do or say, but that is the nature of a witch hunt, it takes away your free will to be a decent person. Not every one has the strength and personal integrity to resist, and these choices follow people for the rest of their lives.

The villains here are Rudy on the one hand, and Mignini and the Italian prosecution and civil parties on the other. Bystanders may have performed more or less disgracefully, but they didn't author these events, Guede and Mignini did.

 

[Kauffer]

Your question, Kauffer, should be enough to blow out of the water any confidence that the bra-clasp Sample 165B has anything to do with the murder. This is one, unitary sample, with many identities on it. Even Judge Nencini tried to account for those identities (plural).

What this is, is a battle for context. Both convicting courts, Massei's and Nencini's, succumb to a suspect-centric evaluation: they claim that they are not, but they are. In fairness to Machiavelli, he's not inventing the suspect-centric nature of the convictions, he's just passing it on, as per the highlighted part above.

It is short-hand for, "Raffaele found, Raffaele guilty," regardless of the overall context of how sample 165B got on the hooks.....

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]

.... even before showing that Stefanoni herself is photographed by her own people handling the hooks of the bra-clasp.

Everyone should read page 236ff. of the Massei report where he first addresses the issue of why Stefanoni, herself in his opinion, did not do a suspect-centred DNA analysis. It has to do with her explanation of why peaks below 50 RFU can be seen as stutter, but peaks above 50 RFU are not necessarily alleles - technically correct.

Massei then wanders into Stefanoni's remarks about "bench contamination", which she says is, "possible but quite rare." Stefanoni also defends doing only one test - when protocols call for two tests - claiming that the first result was definitive.

Massei loses track of the criticism of Stefanoni's work as being "suspect-centric" through all this, until having to deal with Professor Tagliabracci's criticisms, which Massei does on page 256:

​

​

How does Judge Massei resolve this in his 2010 report? Massei raises the issue that it could be resolved by the appointment of an independent DNA analyst, by saying that even with the appointment of an independent analyst it still would be the court's decision on who to believe.

According to Massei, all an independent analyst could do is side with Stefanoni or the defence consultant - and, again acc. to Massei, the court would be no further along.

Massei's illogical rationalization of this is on pages 319-320 of his report.

Because rather than actually come to a conclusion about the charge of a "suspect-centric" analysis, Massei defers to the probability of the Raffaele-DNA (being part of 165B) actually being Raffaele's and not someone else, someone who shares Raffaele's profile. (See Machiavelli's parroting of this above!)

With reference to Stefanoni's demonstrable suspect-centric analysis, Massei, in essence, just drops the discussion in his own report - after he, himself brought it up. After he himself articulates Professor Tagliabracci's objections.....

...... which could have been resolved by independent DNA analysis, like Judge Hellmann ordered at the next trial!!

And, of course, we know what happened with the Conti-Vecchiotti report which was presented to the second trial. They are called criminals in this very thread on ISF, simply because they, in essence, agreed with Professor Tagliabracci from the first trial.

Yes, those Massei segments are extraordinary. They 'filtered' the allele scores, as C and V discovered, to present a forced interpretation. That's known as 'doctoring the results', isn't it?

 

[JREF2010]

Yep, this makes a lot of sense, and there's something very fishy about what happened downstairs. The boys in that apartment must have been shut up somehow. Has any of them publicly corroborated the bleeding cat story?

Who would speak out against the police in that kind of environment? A police state where they will press charges, toss you in prison, or destroy your car like Napoleoni did (and got busted for).

Migninni intimidation, like that of the Spanish Inquisition 2007......

Perugia smells of rats in uniforms.

 

[Numbers]

Yes, those Massei segments are extraordinary. They 'filtered' the allele scores, as C and V discovered, to present a forced interpretation. That's known as 'doctoring the results', isn't it?

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The highlighted phrase is the source of Stefanoni's doctor's degree.

 

[carbonjam72]

Who would speak out against the police in that kind of environment? A police state where they will press charges, toss you in prison, or destroy your car like Napoleoni did (and got busted for).

Migninni intimidation, like that of the Spanish Inquisition 2007......

Perugia smells of rats in uniforms.

Noooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[Desert Fox]

Who would speak out against the police in that kind of environment? A police state where they will press charges, toss you in prison, or destroy your car like Napoleoni did (and got busted for).

Migninni intimidation, like that of the Spanish Inquisition 2007......

Perugia smells of rats in uniforms.

When your own lawyer recommends that you do not bring up allegations of abuse, the system is screwed.