Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

In addition to that, Stefanoni authored some very successful international academic publications.

That's interesting, because she also figures in a very successful international academic publication: Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice

 

[Diocletus]

The RIS were previously requested those data.

Really. Were they also under court order to produce it, like Stefanoni was?

 

[Vixen]

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?

No, that's not how DNA works. For a trace to be left, you need to be pressing down on the object pretty firmly, perhaps even perspiring. DNA sampling is almost always based on a swab from the inside of a cheek, or bodily fluid. This is because as it dries it deteriorates quickly.

The only other DNA in the entire house from Raff was on a cigarette stub. (Some say one in Laura's room, others on the inside of Mez' door; Raff defense said it was "too indistinguishable").

There is no way Raff's DNA got on Mez' bra clasp from their sharing a towel or via Amanda.

There is no innocent explanation for it.

ETA Occam's Razor

 

[Vixen]

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.

Did Potenza or the defense lodge a complaint?

I thought not.

It's the old defense trick of failing to turn up as an expert witness and then crying, "Foul! Dismiss the evidence!"

 

[bagels]

No, that's not how DNA works. For a trace to be left, you need to be pressing down on the object pretty firmly, perhaps even perspiring. DNA sampling is almost always based on a swab from the inside of a cheek, or bodily fluid. This is because as it dries it deteriorates quickly.

The only other DNA in the entire house from Raff was on a cigarette stub. (Some say one in Laura's room, others on the inside of Mez' door; Raff defense said it was "too indistinguishable").

There is no way Raff's DNA got on Mez' bra clasp from their sharing a towel or via Amanda.

There is no innocent explanation for it.

ETA Occam's Razor

It was either planted by a cop or the results were forged by Stefanoni IMO. We'll never know for sure.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

As Diocletus and others have mentioned, the tests for the bra clasp and knife appear to have been under suspicious circumstances, results hidden, falsified.

I'll bet that Marasca singles out Stefanoni in particular for botching both the crime scene collection of evidence, as well as bungling if not outright falsifying the DNA lab work.

As to Nencini's conclusion that only Raf's DNA mattered, of course that is suspect centric. Raf's partial profile is in exactly the same position as any of the other 2-4 males found on the clasp. Apart from being an LCN sample, which Stef's lab was not certified to perform, there is no supporting evidence of anyone else in the room apart from Rudy Guede, as indicated by footprints in wet blood, fingerprints, palmprints, etc.

Your argument that it is not necessary to leave footprints in wet blood in a room where a murder has been committed, is negated by the fact that such evidence was left in this case, but only for Rudy Guede.

Your irrational unsupported bias against two innocent people is a burden you would do well to relieve yourself of.

Anyway, I will be interested to hear your analysis of Marasca's report, if you care to share it when the report comes out.

One more question that's come up Mach: Regarding the conviction for calunnia against Amanda. Does Calunnia require one to "know" that someone is innocent and accuse them anyway? Or would that be "aggravated calunnia"?

Does the cassation finding of innocence on the murder charge, make it impossible for Amanda to "Know" that Patrick was innocent, since cassation (5th section) is saying Amanda wasn't there?

Is this calunnia conviction AND the murder acquittal, a conflict among the cassation panels?

 

[RWVBWL]

No, that's not how DNA works. For a trace to be left, you need to be pressing down on the object pretty firmly, perhaps even perspiring.
<snip>

Vixen,
so I am supposing that the other guys who left their DNA on Meredith's bra clasp pressed down firmly or they were sweating, is this your opinion?

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli's post upthread is the definition of a conspiracy theory.

 

[bagels]

Machiavelli's post upthread is the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Isn't the entire alleged crime a conspiracy theory. Three people that barely knew each other, of three different nationalities, and two different languages, came together randomly with no established communication on a night they previously had other engagements on, and murdered a girl for no reason.

 

[Planigale]

For me the issue is more: Is she qualified and well regarded? It would seem from my Google that she was teaching a class or at least giving lecture.

IIRC she had gone to Indonesia after the tidal wave to help ID people in 2004.

Before anybody comes unglued I think the ICSI work was horrible at every phase.

I wished that one PGP would come here and say: Okay, the CSI work sucked and the knife and bra clasp shouldn't have made it into the trial. They should also have excluded Curatolo, Nara and Quintavalle, as they did Cristian T.

Btw, Nara was interviewed in Nov. 27, 2007 by the police. Someone here said it was months after the deed but not true.

I would like to see Nara's and Filomena's statements translated. (Hint, hint )

Anyway the PGP should drop Curatolo as he makes any scenario not work.

And the tow truck left at 11:25 not later.

Any other verification of the Koko drunkenness story? Maybe he was so upset for being involved in a murder he medicated.

I do not think that Steff was particularly out of step with her peers in the police forensic science service. The fact that there were defects in the forensic science service is I think systemic and we are wrong to blame Steff in person. Her practice was inadequate but she probably was not given resources or opportunity to meet the best international standards. We see the defects in the handling of the computers, the CCTV, the shoe and footprints.

I would be genuinely interested to discover Steff's training in crime scene investigation.

 

[Planigale]

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.

You have frequently claimed this but when asked have been unable to reference these papers, including for instance a citation index to show these are 'successful'. I do not mean to be rude but for someone who did not know what DNA was despite posting on this topic I am not going to trust you on what a successful paper is.

 

[Bill Williams]

Isn't the entire alleged crime a conspiracy theory. Three people that barely knew each other, of three different nationalities, and two different languages, came together randomly with no established communication on a night they previously had other engagements on, and murdered a girl for no reason.

Well, what makes Machiavelli's piece of it a conspiracy theory is that it is filled with assertions rather than evidence. Look at the way he handles the issue of Stefanoni' hidden Ph.D.

Look at the way he handles Nencini's suspect-centric approach to the DNA.

The case is over, the kids are exonerated and all he has is a declaration or opinion that Vecchiotti is a criminal? That's it? Any evidence of this?

That's not the point when you're spinning a conspiracy. The wilder the claim, the more strident the theory.

Of course the case against the kids was a conspiracy. All there was, was judicially generated evidence anyway. Not forensicly generated, judicially generated.

Thats really the ONLY reason to entertain multiple attackers, because some court somewhere said it was so.

 

[Planigale]

No, that's not how DNA works. For a trace to be left, you need to be pressing down on the object pretty firmly, perhaps even perspiring. DNA sampling is almost always based on a swab from the inside of a cheek, or bodily fluid. This is because as it dries it deteriorates quickly.
The only other DNA in the entire house from Raff was on a cigarette stub. (Some say one in Laura's room, others on the inside of Mez' door; Raff defense said it was "too indistinguishable").

There is no way Raff's DNA got on Mez' bra clasp from their sharing a towel or via Amanda.

There is no innocent explanation for it.

ETA Occam's Razor

This is nonsense. Desiccation does not destroy DNA.

Please read
Meakin, G. and A. Jamieson (2013). "DNA transfer: review and implications for casework." Forensic Science International 7(4): 434-443.
"DNA-bearing cellular material can come to be present on a surface by either direct or indirect transfer. Direct transfer includes contact, but also includes activities within the vicinity of an item that may result in the transfer of DNA directly from an individual without any contact, such as speaking, coughing, and sneezing. Indirect transfer of DNA is when DNA from an individual comes to be on an item via an intermediary surface."
Goray, M., et al. (2012). "Evaluation of multiple transfer of DNA using mock case scenarios." Legal Medicine 14(1): 40-46.
Goray, M. and R. A. H. van Oorschot (2013). "DNA transfer during social interactions." Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 4(1): e101-e102.

 

[acbytesla]

No, that's not how DNA works. For a trace to be left, you need to be pressing down on the object pretty firmly, perhaps even perspiring. DNA sampling is almost always based on a swab from the inside of a cheek, or bodily fluid. This is because as it dries it deteriorates quickly.

The only other DNA in the entire house from Raff was on a cigarette stub. (Some say one in Laura's room, others on the inside of Mez' door; Raff defense said it was "too indistinguishable").

There is no way Raff's DNA got on Mez' bra clasp from their sharing a towel or via Amanda.

There is no innocent explanation for it.

ETA Occam's Razor

You flat out don't know what you're talking about. In fact you don't have a clue. NO ONE has a firm grasp on how DNA is transferred. So pulling it out of your backside isn't sufficient. Also, you need to go back and read Occam's Razor again. It states "all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually right". USUALLY. Not always, and since Stefanoni failed miserably to use proper protocols in the collection and testing of LCN DNA well never know if primary transfer is the most likely source.

 

[Diocletus]

Did Potenza or the defense lodge a complaint?

I thought not.

It's the old defense trick of failing to turn up as an expert witness and then crying, "Foul! Dismiss the evidence!"

Your point would be more interesting if stefanoni hadn't suppressed the EDFs.

 

[Machiavelli]

You have frequently claimed this but when asked have been unable to reference these papers, including for instance a citation index to show these are 'successful'. I do not mean to be rude but for someone who did not know what DNA was despite posting on this topic I am not going to trust you on what a successful paper is.

By saying "successful" I was mainly thinking about: A. Caglià, P. Stefanoni, A. La Rosa, Cold cases: New technologies for DNA analysis allow the reopening and solution of unsolved cases, Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, Volume 3, Issue 1, December 2011, Pages e230-e231

Still today (2015) listed in the "top 25" in Forensics Gentics of "sciencedirect.com". It was hit #1 by the end of 2012. It was seller #4 through 2012, and currently (2015) still in the top 25 in place 17.


http://top25.sciencedirect.com/

I can't tell about the academic value of "sciencedirect.com" placement list. I just take it as a clue that the publication has some success.
(note: Stefanoni anyway is a member of ENFSI, Vecchiotti is not).

 

[carbonjam72]

By saying "successful" I was mainly thinking about: A. Caglià, P. Stefanoni, A. La Rosa, Cold cases: New technologies for DNA analysis allow the reopening and solution of unsolved cases, Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, Volume 3, Issue 1, December 2011, Pages e230-e231

Still today (2015) listed in the "top 25" in Forensics Gentics of "sciencedirect.com". It was hit #1 by the end of 2012. It was seller #4 through 2012, and currently (2015) still in the top 25 in place 17.


http://top25.sciencedirect.com/

I can't tell about the academic value of "sciencedirect.com" placement list. I just take it as a clue that the publication has some success.
(note: Stefanoni anyway is a member of ENFSI, Vecchiotti is not).

Have Nick VDL and Lisa published anything on there? Because they're very high up on Amazon rankings too.

 

[Machiavelli]

Really. Were they also under court order to produce it, like Stefanoni was?

Had courts wanted to obtain some type of documentation, they would have obtained it.

 

[Machiavelli]

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

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.
(...)

Your reading is wrong. Not many people in Italy work as "researchers" without a doctorate; in particular, nobody could work for 8 years without a doctorate.
If one works as a researcher and doesn't earn a doctorate within 3 academic years, can say goodbye to their wages.

You may be correct that there is not a reference or piece of paper that states *directly* that Stefanoni has a doctorate. But your question was why I was sure she has a doctorate (I am Machiavelli, a distinct rational entity, not this thread").
I can say Stefanoni has a PhD because that's obvious to me, precisely based on indirect evidence. Because I know the context where Stefanoni is.
(btw, it should be clear to everyone by now that I emphasize the value of inferential evidence; I believe also would be good to other side if they develop some consciousness about parts of reality that they imply and they take for granted, the "contexts" they imagine, what forms their unconscious prejudice).

 

[Machiavelli]

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.
(...)

I anticipate that I won't follow your reasoning circles, where you will just repeat your theory about some interlocutor again and again.

You may only ask me questions about what I see; and you can ecpect my answer to be consistsnt. I can't answer for what Bill Williams sees.

Among things I see, there is a very simple reality: Vecchiotti is a fraud. She lied. She lied in her report, she lied in court.

Incidentally, it is also evident, to me, that Vecchiotti & Conti did not "demonstrate" anything (not even Stefanoni's purported "incompetence", which is not, and in my opinion on principle should not, ever be a discussion topic in the case; turning a trial into a discussion about Stefanoni's incompetence would be itself a cheating and a fraud: a trial must be focused on the suspect).

But clearly a very shocking element, to me, is the glaring obvious evidence that Vecchiotti is a liar and a fraud.
Just think about my point of view, the point of view of someone who has this evidence before his eyes: this is the first and main thing I would point at.
The evidence of Vecchiotti being a liar and a fraud is something incomparably more glaring and self-evident rather than an assessment on the academic qualifications or quality of some specialized trainings of Stefanoni. It's incomparable. It's like the Sun and the Moon. Evidence of Vecchiotti's fraud is shining and pervasive, was at the center in the history of proceedings like a sun within its solar system.

The people in this thread live in their own world. I don't care if they only see Stefanoni, go on ranting about "incompetence" etc., they may think this is the topic, their rants are void. I don't follow their delusion, I point at what I see.