Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Early autopsy reports claimed Mez' alcohol level was three times over the legal driving limit (later retracted), so we have to wonder how much can be gleaned once rigor mortis has firmly set in.

She had one to two drinks in her at TOD. Both Lalli and a second lab verified this.

Well, something was found in Mez' oesophagus - and I was not alluding to this - and if it looked like a mushroom and felt like one, it probably was one. Perhaps Lalli said it was a mushroom because common sense told him. Police identified it as coming from a punnet of similar ceps (?) at Raff's.

So she stopped by Raf's and that's when she touched his kitchen knife?

 

[Vixen]

Yes the fact that you find it difficult to believe does not make it untrue.
In the UK forensic scientists will usually have a degree in science often chemistry, and a specific masters in forensic science, they will then be entry level forensic scientists, but will require further training. Some like Prof. Gill go on and get PhD.

The system is not the same in Italy.

Sefanoni background was in biomedical research using DNA techniques. She was brought in to the Police Science lab to give them some expertise in DNA. In an interview she specifically mentions one of the ways her training at university could have been improved was some training in forensic science, clearly indicating that she had no training in forensic science prior to her appointment. At the time the laboratory had no external quality assurance, it is not clear there was even internal quality assurance. She had had no attachments to established services e.g. FBI or UK forensic science service to see how established services functioned. She had no experience in LCN work. There is no record she underwent any training in crime scene investigation, quite a different process from being the laboratory based scientist she was. let alone to be the senior investigator on site directing the investigation at a major crime such as a murder.

Was this why it was so badly investigated? Why critical evidence was left behind? Why no fibre analysis was done? Why shoe print and footprint analysis was done by inappropriate people?

You may want Stef to be both a great field investigator and laboratory scientist the truth is she was neither. The evidence of her lack of expertise is clear in both areas. This is not her fault. Comments made around this case indicate that formal training in forensic science was generally lacking in Italy. The responsibility for ensuring her training and standard meeting was the director of her laboratory. She may have been no worse than many others doing similar jobs. One of the responsibilities of the judiciary is to ensure minimal standards in forensic science by refusing to accept evidence that did not derive from work meeting those standards.

Stefanoni used a world respected lab in Rome and had literally performed thousands of DNA tests in her seven-year police career. It is preposterous to suggest she abandonned her scientific standards to fake the tests, a claim she found very offensive.

When Stefanoni picked up the bra clasp, she had fresh gloves on and anyway, did not touch the hooks, which contained Raff's DNA.

For Raff's DNA to transfer - from, say, the door knob - it would need to be a wet watery trace, as dry DNA will not transfer onto a glove. In any case, the bra clasp DNA, assessed by DNA expert Prof David Balding a very strong indisputable profile of Raff and not any sort of error, contained Raff Y-haplotypes, which Stef as a female could not have introduced. The sundry allelles the defense likes to point to are not DNA profiles.

Fact is, there are no two ways about it: Raff's DNA is strongly imprinted on the bra clasp, there is no evidence of any contamination and nor did the defense put forward a feasible explanation for contamination other than ridiculous drafonfly allusions.

 

[Kauffer]

Making more and more pedantic demands to the point of unreasonableness is a typical defense tactic to frustrate the evidence found.

Demands for accuracy, discovery and due process are hardly pedantic. In this case they represent material breaches of the law and defendants' rights.

Stefanoni's desperate plea to the judge not to order the release of raw data appears to be the product of a realisation that her concealment of evidence was about to land her in serious trouble, publicly in the face of the world's media and legally in that she could well have faced criminal charges.

 

[Vixen]

She had one to two drinks in her at TOD. Both Lalli and a second lab verified this.



So she stopped by Raf's and that's when she touched his kitchen knife?

Unfortunately for Raff, Amanda had already confirmed to police Mez had never been to Raff's apartment even before Raff wrote in his prison diary he accidentally pricked the back of Mez' hand whilst cooking there.

He must be precogniscent to know police would find Mez' DNA on his knife.

 

[Kauffer]

Stefanoni used a world respected lab in Rome and had literally performed thousands of DNA tests in her seven-year police career. It is preposterous to suggest she abandonned her scientific standards to fake the tests, a claim she found very offensive.

When Stefanoni picked up the bra clasp, she had fresh gloves on and anyway, did not touch the hooks, which contained Raff's DNA.

For Raff's DNA to transfer - from, say, the door knob - it would need to be a wet watery trace, as dry DNA will not transfer onto a glove. In any case, the bra clasp DNA, assessed by DNA expert Prof David Balding a very strong indisputable profile of Raff and not any sort of error, contained Raff Y-haplotypes, which Stef as a female could not have introduced. The sundry allelles the defense likes to point to are not DNA profiles.

Fact is, there are no two ways about it: Raff's DNA is strongly imprinted on the bra clasp, there is no evidence of any contamination and nor did the defense put forward a feasible explanation for contamination other than ridiculous drafonfly allusions.

The dragonfly allusions had nothing to do with the claim of contamination. No other DNA or any other physical evidence of Raffaele was in the room. So, how on earth could he even reach Kercher before the killing without flying, let alone exit the bloody room without leaving something behind other than his DNA on the clasp. Where are his shoe prints in blood? Guede left his, but Raffaele's are absent as are Amanda's. Remember Locard?

On the question of the collection of the clasp, you omit to mention that the incompetent fools forgot to photograph it in situ, placed it back on the floor and passed it around before bagging. Do you have a forensic evidence manual, which describes this activity as legitimate and according to established guidelines?

 

[Grinder]

Stefanoni used a world respected lab in Rome and had literally performed thousands of DNA tests in her seven-year police career. It is preposterous to suggest she abandonned her scientific standards to fake the tests, a claim she found very offensive.

What source do you have for it being a world respected lab? What is the name of the lab?

For Raff's DNA to transfer - from, say, the door knob - it would need to be a wet watery trace, as dry DNA will not transfer onto a glove. In any case, the bra clasp DNA, assessed by DNA expert Prof David Balding a very strong indisputable profile of Raff and not any sort of error, contained Raff Y-haplotypes, which Stef as a female could not have introduced. The sundry allelles the defense likes to point to are not DNA profiles.

Why change gloves unless wet blood or some wetness is present? Would love to see some official CSI protocol that indicates when gloves are not needed to be changes.

Fact is, there are no two ways about it: Raff's DNA is strongly imprinted on the bra clasp, there is no evidence of any contamination and nor did the defense put forward a feasible explanation for contamination other than ridiculous drafonfly allusions.

I thought the defense pointed to the dirty gloves and of course the moving and delay make for an issue. Do you think one of the other profiles on the clasp match the "semen" stain? Do you think since RAf and Mez may have shared a towel after hand washing that MK might transferred his DNA to the clasp?

 

[Vixen]

Demands for accuracy, discovery and due process are hardly pedantic. In this case they represent material breaches of the law and defendants' rights.

Stefanoni's desperate plea to the judge not to order the release of raw data appears to be the product of a realisation that her concealment of evidence was about to land her in serious trouble, publicly in the face of the world's media and legally in that she could well have faced criminal charges.

Nonsense.

Let the camel's nose into the tent, soon the camel is in the tent ~ Arabic adage

 

[Grinder]

Unfortunately for Raff, Amanda had already confirmed to police Mez had never been to Raff's apartment even before Raff wrote in his prison diary he accidentally pricked the back of Mez' hand whilst cooking there.

He must be precogniscent to know police would find Mez' DNA on his knife.

Oh he wrote it before they tested hmmmm could have sworn it was after.

As for Amanda saying she had never been there maybe MK and Raf had a secret.

 

[Vixen]

The dragonfly allusions had nothing to do with the claim of contamination. No other DNA or any other physical evidence of Raffaele was in the room. So, how on earth could he even reach Kercher before the killing without flying, let alone exit the bloody room without leaving something behind other than his DNA on the clasp. Where are his shoe prints in blood? Guede left his, but Raffaele's are absent as are Amanda's. Remember Locard?

On the question of the collection of the clasp, you omit to mention that the incompetent fools forgot to photograph it in situ, placed it back on the floor and passed it around before bagging. Do you have a forensic evidence manual, which describes this activity as legitimate and according to established guidelines?

Police were firmly convinced the shoe prints were Raff's. Papa Raff managed to persuade Massei to say they were Rudy's, as well as turn the clock back to coincide Raff's call to the police with their arrival.

 

[Vixen]

Oh he wrote it before they tested hmmmm could have sworn it was after.

As for Amanda saying she had never been there maybe MK and Raf had a secret.

Either way, the kitchen knife worried the heck out of both Raff and Amanda, and even Kokomani referred to one.

Raff claimed to hardly know Mez. OTOH Amanda had been very friendly with Giacomo before he paired with Mez. Another jealousy trigger point.

 

[Vixen]

What source do you have for it being a world respected lab? What is the name of the lab?

John Follain, for it is he, names the "Rome offices of the forensic police opposite the Cinecitta film studios".

Why change gloves unless wet blood or some wetness is present? Would love to see some official CSI protocol that indicates when gloves are not needed to be changes.



I thought the defense pointed to the dirty gloves and of course the moving and delay make for an issue. Do you think one of the other profiles on the clasp match the "semen" stain? Do you think since RAf and Mez may have shared a towel after hand washing that MK might transferred his DNA to the clasp?

The defense were watching in a van outside by CCTV. Defense lawyers being desperate to get their client off will latch onto any old thing, no matter how improbable.

There was DNA found of at least two other people. Without a match to an actual person, they will never know who they were or whether they are even germane to the event.

ETA Mez had a shower that afternoon and placed her dirty clothes in the washing machine (or so claims Amanda). It is unlikely, to my mind, she would have put on the same underwear as before the shower.

 

[Kauffer]

Police were firmly convinced the shoe prints were Raff's. Papa Raff managed to persuade Massei to say they were Rudy's, as well as turn the clock back to coincide Raff's call to the police with their arrival.

Your nonsense gets worse. The prints were not Raffaele's; they were Guede's. You're not seriously suggesting that Raffaele's father bought Massei on this point are you?

Again, the problem for you remains. Raffaele's profile on the clasp must be aberrant on account of the absence of any other evidence of him in the room.

Get used to it.

 

[Grinder]

John Follain, for it is he, names the "Rome offices of the forensic police opposite the Cinecitta film studios".

So no source or a fictional crime writer.

The defense were watching in a van outside by CCTV. Defense lawyers being desperate to get their client off will latch onto any old thing, no matter how improbable.

They watched. We have watched. Of course they complained about the treatment of the clasp. Hell the clasp may have a case with the ECHR.

There was DNA found of at least two other people. Without a match to an actual person, they will never know who they were or whether they are even germane to the event.

Oops.

ETA Mez had a shower that afternoon and placed her dirty clothes in the washing machine (or so claims Amanda). It is unlikely, to my mind, she would have put on the same underwear as before the shower.

If she used the hand towel Raf had used before putting on her bra she easily could have transferred his DNA. But if her bra was clean then where in the H did those other profiles come from? Could it be the profile of a cop or two that somehow touched the clasp barehanded when planting searching the place after the ISCI left?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Stefanoni used a world respected lab in Rome and had literally performed thousands of DNA tests in her seven-year police career. It is preposterous to suggest she abandonned her scientific standards to fake the tests, a claim she found very offensive.

What "world respected lab in Rome" did she use, and can you cite any material at all to indicate this lab was actually "world respected"? (Sorry, don't mean to be overly critical, but in the past you have used manipulative wording and flat out lied to support a biased position, so I want to see citations for this as no one has ever heard she used a world respected lab.)

Also, experience does not imply competency. A better measure would be to analyze her actual work, and every world-class DNA expert who has examined her work has said it was grossly inadequate and the results could not possibly be reliable.

When Stefanoni picked up the bra clasp, she had fresh gloves on and anyway, did not touch the hooks, which contained Raff's DNA.

No she did not, and there is no way you could possibly know whether she touched the hooks or not. And the bra clasp was collected more than a month after the initial investigation, and it was moved from its original position. Meaning it had to be touched and moved by someone/something, and anything could have been transferred at this time. Therefore we know it was almost certainly contaminated, as material will be transferred (even in minute quantities) when coming in contact with other people or objects.

For Raff's DNA to transfer - from, say, the door knob - it would need to be a wet watery trace, as dry DNA will not transfer onto a glove.

This is completely wrong. Secondary transfer can and will occur even on a dry surface. It will just occur in greater quantities if wet. PCR based genotyping will detect small quantities by virtue of how the mechanism works, so even if the amount transferred is relatively small, it will still be detected.

Furthermore, "A biological substance that has been transferred multiple times,
if detectable, will often appear as components of complex DNA
profiles. This is because the vectors aiding the transfer and/or the
substrate from which it is ultimately collected also bear DNA." (Goray 2009)

The profile appeared as components of a complex DNA profile, as evidenced by Dr. Balding's (and everyone else's) analysis. Thus it was almost certainly transferred from somewhere, and the vectors that transferred Raf's DNA also contained other DNA profiles.

In any case, the bra clasp DNA, assessed by DNA expert Prof David Balding a very strong indisputable profile of Raff and not any sort of error, contained Raff Y-haplotypes, which Stef as a female could not have introduced. The sundry allelles the defense likes to point to are not DNA profiles.

What? Yes they are. Even Dr. Balding said they were. That was the entire point of his analysis. He was looking at a complex DNA mixture and estimating the probability that Raf's DNA was part of that complex mixture. How can you possibly not know anything about this after all this time?

Fact is, there are no two ways about it: Raff's DNA is strongly imprinted on the bra clasp, there is no evidence of any contamination and nor did the defense put forward a feasible explanation for contamination other than ridiculous drafonfly allusions.

Every single DNA expert that has examined the evidence (that was not working for the prosecution), has come to the exact opposite conclusion as you. Literally everyone except Stefanoni recognizes it was contamination, and every bit of evidence on how it was handled, collected, and the analysis itself indicates it was a mixture of DNA profiles that were there due to gross contamination.

 

[bagels]

Police were firmly convinced the shoe prints were Raff's. Papa Raff managed to persuade Massei to say they were Rudy's, as well as turn the clock back to coincide Raff's call to the police with their arrival.

Very impressive of them to teach Massei how to count rings. I managed to teach my 3 year old daughter the same.

 

[Diocletus]

It's irrelevant. He was legally entitled to be there. If he failed to turn up, that's his own negligence.

You can only show up for what you are notified.

There is no confirmation that Potenza was notified of all stages of testing of 36 and 165. 165, in particular, appears to have been amplified in secret.

 

[Bill Williams]

Your nonsense gets worse. The prints were not Raffaele's; they were Guede's. You're not seriously suggesting that Raffaele's father bought Massei on this point are you?

Again, the problem for you remains. Raffaele's profile on the clasp must be aberrant on account of the absence of any other evidence of him in the room.

Get used to it.

What people don't seem to get is that there was one and only one exhibit on the bra-clasp, a substance known as Exhibit 165. 165A was Merediths and 165B was a composite - he full nature of which was unknown to the Massei court, and not revealed until the Conti-Vecchioti report to the Hellmann court in 2011. The full nature of which showed the presence of other male contributors to 165B, assuming that 165B also contained any of Raffaele's material, and not just someone from a pool of a large number of men from which Raffaele could not be excluded.

Regardless, with that as a reality, contamination could no be ruled out Also, contamination was also likely, although it was probably a fool's errand to locate the actual route of contamination.

Don't let these photos stop you, taken by Stefanoni's staff.



Not only is it the "absence of any presence of Raffaele in any other part of the room," but it is that Raffaele's assumed presence on the bra-clasp is not unique.

Someone needs to account for the other male contributors. Judge Necnini tried to account for them (suggesting that two of them could be female!!), but then Nencini returns to suspect-centric reasoning; the real import for him is that one of the suspects in front of his court is found there. He's actually disinterested in contamination, it's potential route - the important thing is to apply circular reasoning.

Raffaele was n that room, therefore the only thing pointing to him being in that room, must point to him being in that room

 

[Machiavelli]

That is an equally valid question. The rider to that kind of question should be, "by whom?"

Clearly Stefanoni was not regarded highly by Conti & Vecchiotti. Now that Machiavelli is back, maybe he can explain to us:

1) his reason for claiming Stefanoni has a research doctorate?​

Because she worked 8 years as a researcher at Naples Federico II University, and nobody in Italy works 8 years as a researcher without having a doctorate. In addition to that, Stefanoni authored some very successful international academic publications.

2) why he only way to defend Stefanoni is not to point to positive claims about her, but to vilify Vecchiotti and accuse C&V of crimes?

I see no causal link between accusing Conti & Vecchiotti and defending Stefanoni. I don't see accusing Vecchiotti & Conti as a way to defend Stefanoni.
I accuse Conti & Vecchiotti - and Vecchiotti in particular - on independent ground: because they are liars and frauds.
They are proven liars. Vecchiotti lied and cheated. It's just provable, it's a fact that stands independently itself.
It's independent from anything one can think about Stefanoni.

3) why the RIS Carabinieri at the Nencini trial followed what might be called standard procedure in bringing ALL data to court in relation to Sample 36I, but Stefanoni would only present data to the defence in her own lab, with her own equipment, and on her own terms? How is THAT full disclosure?

The RIS were previously requested those data.
Defence experts & lawyers and RIS met each other and stated it, put it into records, request and agreement about what data defence experts would be given. And they requested those data immediately, during the incidente probatorio.
Defence did nothing of that kind during the 2007 incidente probatorio. Prof. Potenza did not request nor record nor videotaped anything.
Defence experts did not even come to look at laboratory documentation over the time when they were invited to do so.

ETA - it would also be nice of Machiavelli to explain why Judge Nencini was right in his claim that Stefanoni did not engage in a suspect-centric investigation, when he himself draws obvious suspect-centric conclusions about the DNA evidence, as per upthread. (Namely, forget contamination, the real issue is that Raffele's DNA was found. Who cares if unidentified people also have their DNA there?)

I agree 100% with Nencini. As a consequence of what prof. Halkides called "Axiom n.1" of DNA forensics.
"Contamination" is a concept entirely deending on time. "Axiom n.1" says that timing of a DNA trace may not be inferred from the presence or nature the trace itself.
So the presence of traces of DNA from another subject cannot interfer in any way with the timing of the trace of Sollecito's DNA. So Nencini is correct saying Sollecito's trace alone needs to be accounted for, through plausible explanations, other DNA logically doesn't matter.​

 

[Kauffer]

Because she worked 8 years as a researcher at Naples Federico II University, and nobody in Italy works 8 years as a researcher without having a doctorate. In addition to that, Stefanoni authored some very successful international academic publications.



I see no causal link between accusing Conti & Vecchiotti and defending Stefanoni. I don't see accusing Vecchiotti & Conti as a way to defend Stefanoni.
I accuse Conti & Vecchiotti - and Vecchiotti in particular - on independent ground: because they are liars and frauds.
They are proven liars. Vecchiotti lied and cheated. It's just provable, it's a fact that stands independently itself.
It's independent from anything one can think about Stefanoni.



The RIS were previously requested those data.
Defence experts & lawyers and RIS met each other and stated it, put it into records, request and agreement about what data defence experts would be given. And they requested those data immediately, during the incidente probatorio.
Defence did nothing of that kind during the 2007 incidente probatorio. Prof. Potenza did not request nor record nor videotaped anything.
Defence experts did not even come to look at laboratory documentation over the time when they were invited to do so.



I agree 100% with Nencini. As a consequence of what prof. Halkides called "Axiom n.1" of DNA forensics.
"Contamination" is a concept entirely deending on time. "Axiom n.1" says that timing of a DNA trace may not be inferred from the presence or nature the trace itself.
So the presence of traces of DNA from another subject cannot interfer in any way with the timing of the trace of Sollecito's DNA. So Nencini is correct saying Sollecito's trace alone needs to be accounted for, through plausible explanations, other DNA logically doesn't matter.

With reference to the highlighted part, I am not a scientist, but let's assume for a moment, rather oddly, that Raffaele's profile must be determined separately from the others. Well, what's wrong with this: Raffaele rubs his nose with his hand; Raffaele and Amanda hold hands; Amanda gives Meredith a hug and they hold hands; Meredith later takes off her bra. Couldn't that transfer Raffaele's DNA on to the clasp?

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you for this. You did make an attempt, one can only assume a sincere attempt.

Because she worked 8 years as a researcher at Naples Federico II University, and nobody in Italy works 8 years as a researcher without having a doctorate. In addition to that, Stefanoni authored some very successful international academic publications.

This is not exactly an answer to the question. At the very best it is very indirect. My reading is that many people in Italy, in fact, do work as "researchers", without a doctorate.

The fact is, there is nothing that **directly** states that Stefanoni has a doctorate, not in the sense meant in this thread.

What is in sharp focus is that you simply do not post any **direct** evidence. When asked for, you tell us to do our own search. Yet you waste your time posting all this indirect stuff. Only to pull the plug at the last by telling us to do our ouwn search.

Many have. No one can find it. Apparently, not even you.

I see no causal link between accusing Conti & Vecchiotti and defending Stefanoni. I don't see accusing Vecchiotti & Conti as a way to defend Stefanoni.
I accuse Conti & Vecchiotti - and Vecchiotti in particular - on independent ground: because they are liars and frauds.
They are proven liars. Vecchiotti lied and cheated. It's just provable, it's a fact that stands independently itself.
It's independent from anything one can think about Stefanoni.

It is undisputed that you, yourself, see no causal link. No one disputes what you, yourself, see. You've stated it many times.

The fact is, this thread is filled with criticisms of Stefanoni. You rarely, if ever, state **positive** things to rebut those claims. Instead you do what you did above, accuse Vecchiotti of being a criminal and a fraud - and try to make it seem like this has nothing to do with what is being talked about - Stefaoni's incompetence, incompetence as demonstrated in the Conti&Vecchiotti report to the Hellmann court.

The RIS were previously requested those data.
Defence experts & lawyers and RIS met each other and stated it, put it into records, request and agreement about what data defence experts would be given. And they requested those data immediately, during the incidente probatorio.
Defence did nothing of that kind during the 2007 incidente probatorio. Prof. Potenza did not request nor record nor videotaped anything.
Defence experts did not even come to look at laboratory documentation over the time when they were invited to do so.

This is a complete misstatement of how things went down and you know it. One of the defence lawyers petitioned the judge of the day, for instance, to get Stefanoni to hand over the EDFs. The judge inexplicably took Stefaoni's side, saying that (instead of this being routine, as it was for the later RIS Carabinieri) that this was tantamount to accusing Stefanoni of a crime.

When Stefanoni offered a compromise, one that still prevented her from handling over the EDFs, the defence backed away at that point because of the judge's (illegal) ruling. There was no point in trying to push this in front of a based judge. The defence risked a defamation lawsuit from Stefanoni because she saw something which is supposed to be routine, and an accusation of criminality.

Either way, she was simply NOT going to hand over the EDFs without a fight. And you know it.

I agree 100% with Nencini. As a consequence of what prof. Halkides called "Axiom n.1" of DNA forensics.
"Contamination" is a concept entirely deending on time. "Axiom n.1" says that timing of a DNA trace may not be inferred from the presence or nature the trace itself.
So the presence of traces of DNA from another subject cannot interfer in any way with the timing of the trace of Sollecito's DNA. So Nencini is correct saying Sollecito's trace alone needs to be accounted for, through plausible explanations, other DNA logically doesn't matter.

I know you agree 100% with Nencini. The point is not whether or not you agree with him.

The point is that Nencini defends suspect-centric investigations, specifically as it relates to Sample 165B. Read his report. Other DNA specifically DOES matter, particularly when here is no other presence of that suspect in the room.

In any fair legal system, the system does not reverse the burden of proof - as you want, as Nencini writes, and as Section 1 of the ISC in 2013 almost enshrined into Italian legal practise.

All of this is the reason why you lost, Machiavelli - lost when the ISC in March 2015 exonerated the two people in question. You are clutching at increasingly disappearing straws.