• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris_Halkides said:
This is seriously incorrect on more than one front. One, Stefanoni did TMB testing also, but she was less than forthcoming about it. This is actually standard procedure (following up a luminescent test with a colorimetric one), a point that I have documented many times in these threads and elsewhere.

Two, TMB is not a true confirmatory test for blood in the way that the HemaTrace test for hemoglobin and the RSID test for glycophorin are. It is only when one gets a positive result from a confirmatory test that one can conclude that blood is present. If one reads the relevant portion of the Conti Vecchiotti report, one finds that a species-specific test was performed on the knife (there was also a similar or identical test performed on Rep. 199 if I am not mistaken). The species-specific test is probably a confirmatory blood test, but more information would be needed to pin this down with certainty. I have several blog entries on this general subject.
Click to expand...

I defer to your superior expertise, Chris. However. Did not Conti Vecchitti claim for the defense, the other untested sample on exhibit 36 was "rye starch" or similar.

Another scientific lab tested it, as ordered by Nencini, and it turned out to be...Amanda's DNA.

So much for the Conti Vecchiotti claim "you can't test LCN DNA, as it can't be duplicated."
 
Vixen said:
Stefanoni explained, you do one test or the other, but not both.
Click to expand...

Stefanoni explained wrongly.

You were asked a while back, if you thought that Stefanoni was still the gold standard of DNA-forensics in this case. You did not answer.

You stated that you thought that Conti & Vecchiotti's 2011 report was only commissioned to deal with techincal issues. You seem unaware that C&V completely trashed Stefanoni's results, and perhaps called into question her competence.

In any event, the DNA-forensics Stefanoni has done has been, for lack of a better word, quashed with the decision of the Supreme Court in March 2015.
 
Vixen said:
I defer to your superior expertise, Chris. However. Did not Conti Vecchitti claim for the defense, the other untested sample on exhibit 36 was "rye starch" or similar.

Another scientific lab tested it, as ordered by Nencini, and it turned out to be...Amanda's DNA.

So much for the Conti Vecchiotti claim "you can't test LCN DNA, as it can't be duplicated."
Click to expand...

Vixen - you really must stop posting. This is wrong and embarrassingly wrong.

The sample 36A was the sample Stefanoni said was on the blade of the kitchen knife, and that it was Meredith's non-blood-DNA. Leaving aside the ludicrous narrative Stefanoni provided, 36A was non-testable, because Stefanoni by necessity destroyed it, in the destructive test to see who it belonged to.

36A is destroyed.

The sample Nencini was ordered to retest was 36I. A different sample, apparently still on the knife. Not only did Judge Massei not order its testing, but Conti & Vecchiotti reported to Judge Hellmann that it would do no good to test it.

ISC in 2013 quashed Hellmann, not on the forensics, but partly because the ISC said that Hellmann in effect allowed C&V to make the judicial decision for him.

36I was retested, was found to belong to Amanda Knox, and provided no information whatsoever to do with the crime.

You have this completely wrong. Please stop before posting nonsense, for you own sake.
 
Bill Williams said:
Stefanoni explained wrongly.

You were asked a while back, if you thought that Stefanoni was still the gold standard of DNA-forensics in this case. You did not answer.

You stated that you thought that Conti & Vecchiotti's 2011 report was only commissioned to deal with techincal issues. You seem unaware that C&V completely trashed Stefanoni's results, and perhaps called into question her competence.

In any event, the DNA-forensics Stefanoni has done has been, for lack of a better word, quashed with the decision of the Supreme Court in March 2015.
Click to expand...

Stefanoni is employed by the police. To get to such a position you have to prove yourself suitably qualified. There is a lot of competition for the top jobs. Is a forensic detective really going to jeopardise their career by illegally faking their results, when a defense scientist is standing right there evaluating them?

If Stefanoni is the crook Vecchiotti Conti claim, why is she not under investgation for gross misconduct. Or have the defense failed to lodge a complaint through the proper channels? I thought not.
 
Bill Williams said:
Vixen - you really must stop posting. This is wrong and embarrassingly wrong.

The sample 36A was the sample Stefanoni said was on the blade of the kitchen knife, and that it was Meredith's non-blood-DNA. Leaving aside the ludicrous narrative Stefanoni provided, 36A was non-testable, because Stefanoni by necessity destroyed it, in the destructive test to see who it belonged to.

36A is destroyed.

The sample Nencini was ordered to retest was 36I. A different sample, apparently still on the knife. Not only did Judge Massei not order its testing, but Conti & Vecchiotti reported to Judge Hellmann that it would do no good to test it.

ISC in 2013 quashed Hellmann, not on the forensics, but partly because the ISC said that Hellmann in effect allowed C&V to make the judicial decision for him.

36I was retested, was found to belong to Amanda Knox, and provided no information whatsoever to do with the crime.

You have this completely wrong. Please stop before posting nonsense, for you own sake.
Click to expand...

I was referring to 36i. Do keep up.
 
Bill Williams said:
Stefanoni explained wrongly.

You were asked a while back, if you thought that Stefanoni was still the gold standard of DNA-forensics in this case. You did not answer.

You stated that you thought that Conti & Vecchiotti's 2011 report was only commissioned to deal with techincal issues. You seem unaware that C&V completely trashed Stefanoni's results, and perhaps called into question her competence.

In any event, the DNA-forensics Stefanoni has done has been, for lack of a better word, quashed with the decision of the Supreme Court in March 2015.
Click to expand...


Stop behaving like a mountebanke. All the forensic police officer does is present evidence to the court. Stefanoni did not decide the verdict.

The defense had every opportunity to cross examine her and to cross evaluate her results.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Stefanoni is employed by the police. To get to such a position you have to prove yourself suitably qualified. There is a lot of competition for the top jobs. Is a forensic detective really going to jeopardise their career by illegally faking their results, when a defense scientist is standing right there evaluating them?

If Stefanoni is the crook Vecchiotti Conti claim, why is she not under investgation for gross misconduct. Or have the defense failed to lodge a complaint through the proper channels? I thought not.
Click to expand...


So WTF, err what the heck is Dr. Stefanoni doing testing the evidence she,
and her police co-workers, collected???

Getting the results the PM wanted?
Pfffft...
MOO,
RW
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Seriously, as Amanda herself scoffed, "Mez had her &$@#ing throat cut", are you really postulating there wasn't much blood?

There is proof of a clean up, as blood diluted with water was found, missed by the cleaner/s.
Click to expand...

There appears to be some learning impairment in your thinking. And you're hopping around like a bunny rabbit.

There was a great deal of blood - probably in excess of two litres - in Meredith's room BUT NOT IN THE HALLWAY, WHICH YOU STATED!

You cannot claim dilute blood as evidence of cleaning, for one very good reason - the luminol prints were not made in dilute blood.

Amanda's stressed outburst in the questura was unfortunate but understandable, but you will see that your citation of it as evidence of a "gloating brag" that there was no evidence of her in Kercher's room, is absolutely ridiculous and absurd. It's not on topic. This is way before there was any question of there being a possibility of finding evidence of her in the room.
 
Vixen said:
Stop behaving like a mountebanke. All the forensic police officer does is present evidence to the court. Stefanoni did not decide the verdict.

The defense had every opportunity to cross examine her and to cross evaluate her results.
Click to expand...

Which they did. When they showed Sefanoni the film her own police-people took of her handling exhibit 165 (the bra-clasp) the courtroom laughed at Stefanoni's incompetence.

When Stefanoni was shown by Bongiorno the way she (Stefanoni) handled the evidence......



Stefanoni could neither confirm nor deny that she had handled the hasps of the bra-clasp (with obviously dirty gloves), and it was on those hasps on which 165B was presumably found.

It is true, Stefanoni did not decide the verdict. The Supreme Court in 2015 did. They ruled, in effect, that Stefanoni's work was worthless.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, and the so-called eye witness, Christian Somebodyorother, was not allowed by the court to testify, that tells you what the judge thought. Having stolen property = convicted of possession of stolen property.
Click to expand...


We're you not aware that Rudy was convicted of the possession of that stollen property?
 
Bill Williams said:
Vixen - C&V claimed that 36A resembled rye starch. You implied they said this about 36I.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Conti & Vecchiotti have had their labs closed down, so farewell to them.
Click to expand...

This is an awkward evasion that you've been caught out misrepresenting what C&V said.

Their institution was criticized for the improper storage of corpses, work that had nothing to do with Vecchiotti or Vecchiotti's "lab".

Once again, you misrepresent things, with your random factoid-generator. And it was all to evade dealing with the original issue.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It's my experience a good cop's hunch is often a good one. Many perps have been brought to justice based on such "hallelujah" moments.
Click to expand...

Regrettably, there are far too many cases where this sort of thing is considered "evidence".
It's just a sniff that something's not quite right. The super shiny knife in the drawer, proved such a moment.
Click to expand...

Really? The conjuring trick pulled by the cops who picked out the knife is one of the things that told me that something wasn't right about this case.
 
Vixen said:
Stefanoni is employed by the police. To get to such a position you have to prove yourself suitably qualified. There is a lot of competition for the top jobs. Is a forensic detective really going to jeopardise their career by illegally faking their results, when a defense scientist is standing right there evaluating them?

If Stefanoni is the crook Vecchiotti Conti claim, why is she not under investgation for gross misconduct. Or have the defense failed to lodge a complaint through the proper channels? I thought not.
Click to expand...

The defence found out that both the PMs (who controled the charge process) and the judges (who were colleagues of the PM) were simply not going to have people like Stefanoni charged.

The defendants found out that if they complained about the abuse they received, instead of an investigation of the abuse, the defendant would be charged with calunnia or defamation instead.

However, your question is an excellent one: "why is she not under investgation for gross misconduct?" When you can square that question with the Supremem Court's complete exoneration of AK and RS, you will finally be on the road to understanding this case:

Rather than flooding this thread with random factoids.
 
Vixen said:
We've seen your type before. A lurker who pops up now and then to flame throw.
Click to expand...



Mathew has over 850 posts in this thread and its continuations. Perhaps you need to do some more reading. (starting with the MA)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom