Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Well, that's if Raf's profile is as it was said to be. However, it was in a mixture AFAIR. So, the question is how to distinguish a profile that is Raf + 3 unknown guys from a profile that is more accurately described as 4 unknown guys.

This decision in NY says that you can't use some proprietary computer program to make that determination.

You also can't use LCN.

That's interesting. So I guess the Balding analysis would not be permitted by the court.

 

[Grinder]

They did find some of his DNA later. Fortunately it was not essential evidence in the case against him.

I know they found more of his DNA but it wasn't needed. Therefore not the same issue as Raf's.

 

[Diocletus]

That's interesting. So I guess the Balding analysis would not be permitted by the court.

Yup. Strangely, courts seem not to like it when bean counters like Leila Schnepps want to tell juries what to think.

Not only that, but remember that the bra clasp quantification results were contaminated. So, it's not even clear that we're dealing with a sufficient amount of DNA to get over the LCN prohibition.

 

[acbytesla]

Actually he is admitting that no evidence will change his mind. I believe they are innocent but it is provision. Somebody could, at least in theory, change my mind.

No, he's being delusional. He sees things that aren't there. He thinks that morass of eyewitness testimony is credible. He thinks a bizarre statement that implicates Patrick can somehow be applied to Rudy. He turns a blind eye to everything Rudy said in Germany. He looks at the bath mat and sees Raffaele even though it's a big blob.

Me, it would require a totally different case. There simply is no credible evidence.
While if there was CCTV evidence of Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy entering the cottage between 8:55 and 9:10 I would change my mind, I can't imagine what else that would.

There is only one piece of evidence that has ever made me think they might of did it and that was the supposed DNA of Raffaele on the bra clasp. If there was more evidence along that line, I would have had no choice. Say, if they had found Raffaele's semen at the scene. But they didn't. The collection procedure was a joke, there was a broken chain of custody, and why oh why is the tech presenting this possibly incriminating evidence hiding routine data?

The entire rest of the prosecution case is dumber than a box of rocks. The big cooking knife at Raffaele's, a joke. Curatolo, Quintavalle, and Nara? Absurd.

It has to be the result of some bizarre delusion with the evidence put forth to think these 2 are guilty. I'm sorry, but in my mind, one must either be dishonest, delusional or totally stupid to view these two as guilty. I don't get it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Rudi's evidence was found before he was known. His palm print and DNA from MK and other places. If the only DNA of his was found in LCN quantity and 47 days later in a house he had been in several times, the DNA would be suspect.

This is an important point. The thing about finding evidence before one is known is that it makes that evidence immune from being suspect-centric.

The evidence against Raffaele, for instance, was collected 46 days after the tragedy itself, as well as soon after the Nike-evidence collapsed. They simply needed something, anything to keep Raffaele in this case. And this is before ANY subsequent criticism of Stefanoni and her lab, not rated to do he LCN analysis needed for 165 and 36, but not needed for analysing Rudy's leavings.

Indeed, the only "staging" that ever took place in this crime, was the staging that Stefanoni put on in video'ing the collection of Exhibit 165. And they even booted that!

 

[Kauffer]

More on People v. Collins. Check the comments--fascinating:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/07/23/just-say-no-forensics-edition/


Check this one:



Stefanoni was definitely playing games with her amplification cycles, but we don't know the extent because she didn't produce the EDFs. Shame.

This is quite something:

"But what Justice Dwyer did was remarkably bold, maybe even exceptional. He said “no” to a new wrinkle in DNA analysis, and he did so after other judges said, “sure, why not?”
Who is this guy? I'm impressed. Perhaps he should replace Scalia.

Can you imagine what he would have said about the Kercher case? Haha

 

[Diocletus]

This is quite something:

"But what Justice Dwyer did was remarkably bold, maybe even exceptional. He said “no” to a new wrinkle in DNA analysis, and he did so after other judges said, “sure, why not?”
Who is this guy? I'm impressed. Perhaps he should replace Scalia.

Can you imagine what he would have said about the Kercher case? Haha

One of the posters made up a cute little rhyme:

Justice Dwyer deep Fryes the reliance
On results from a black box appliance.
If your methods are hidden,
Their use is forbidden.
To convict, you can’t use secret science!


Are you listening, Stefanoni?

 

[Diocletus]

Who is this guy? I'm impressed. Perhaps he should replace Scalia.

Can you imagine what he would have said about the Kercher case? Haha

I don't know him, but I noticed he has degrees from Princeton and Yale, so he might be kind of smart. Probably at least Mensa-smart.

Also, he's from Brooklyn, so he might be kind of tough. Probably tougher than most erstwhile triathletes.

What's even more remarkable is that he was a professional prosecutor for 23 years, including during the initial Italy v. Knox trial. And here he is saying that LCN can't be admitted in a criminal case.


http://judges.newyorklawjournal.com...ounty,_Criminal/Mark_Dwyer/Mark_Dwyer-609.xml


ETA: He was Morgenthau's first deputy. That's kind of a big deal.

 

[bagels]

The real culprits would have to come forward and Raff & Amanda to come up with a verifiable alibi.

It won't happen.

Yeah this is why I have 50 neutral people hanging out in my house all night for alibi purposes in case someone across town is murdered by a local burglar.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, he's being delusional. He sees things that aren't there. He thinks that morass of eyewitness testimony is credible. He thinks a bizarre statement that implicates Patrick can somehow be applied to Rudy. He turns a blind eye to everything Rudy said in Germany. He looks at the bath mat and sees Raffaele even though it's a big blob.

I see pieces of evidence but above all their qualities, relations and context. I always try consider things altogether, a hypotheses always to be faced with its alternative.
I see the bathmat print, which has a 30mm wide toe mark, a toe too short for Rudy an a plantar arch curvature different from Rudy, but I also note that the bathmat prints have no trail leading to them or coming from them and are surrounded by clean floor with no other print or stain.
I see the many testimonies, and I understand the are credible, while the scenario that they are all wrong is not reasonable.
I see physics evidence of staging a burglary, and alternative not plausible.
I see luminol stains, and their set of qualities, manifestly indicating at least two different perpetrators.
I see the altering of crime scene and I see there is no consistent lone perpetrator scenario that explains physical evidence.
I see the trail of shoeprints walking out straight, not locking the door, and related to the traces if a person, with different set of qualities compared to the luminol prints.
I close no eye on Guede's statements from Germany, not at all. But I note he says a series of incriminating things against Knox in the same conversation.
I see, this very important to me, the autopsy report, and I see obvious evidence of multiple perpetrators (simplistic rhetoric about number of experts saying etc. doesn't work with me).
I see there is no plausible alternative for substance and dynamic to explain the luminol prints.
I see DNA results on stains. I see the DNA findings in knife, on bra clasp. I see the knife imprint on bed.
I see Knox's lamp inside the murder room.
I see the endless series of lies by RS and AK, endless series of grotesque inconsistencies before and after the police interrogation.
I see Knox's placing false evidence against innocent people multiple times, noting btw that no court on any instance had any reasonable doubt that she had no justification, no coercion or false memory syndrome, for a filthy calunnia like that one.

In addition to that, I read documentation and know contexts, people and procedure, and don't maintain the delusional false narratives and nonsensical conspiracy theories of the Knox supporters.

 

[Diocletus]

I see pieces of evidence but above all their qualities, relations and context. I always try consider things altogether, a hypotheses always to be faced with its alternative.
I see the bathmat print, which has a 30mm wide toe mark, a toe too short for Rudy an a plantar arch curvature different from Rudy, but I also note that the bathmat prints have no trail leading to them or coming from them and are surrounded by clean floor with no other print or stain.
I see the many testimonies, and I understand the are credible, while the scenario that they are all wrong is not reasonable.
I see physics evidence of staging a burglary, and alternative not plausible.
I see luminol stains, and their set of qualities, manifestly indicating at least two different perpetrators.
I see the altering of crime scene and I see there is no consistent lone perpetrator scenario that explains physical evidence.
I see the trail of shoeprints walking out straight, not locking the door, and related to the traces if a person, with different set of qualities compared to the luminol prints.
I close no eye on Guede's statements from Germany, not at all. But I note he says a series of incriminating things against Knox in the same conversation.
I see, this very important to me, the autopsy report, and I see obvious evidence of multiple perpetrators (simplistic rhetoric about number of experts saying etc. doesn't work with me).
I see there is no plausible alternative for substance and dynamic to explain the luminol prints.
I see DNA results on stains. I see the DNA findings in knife, on bra clasp. I see the knife imprint on bed.
I see Knox's lamp inside the murder room.
I see the endless series of lies by RS and AK, endless series of grotesque inconsistencies before and after the police interrogation.
I see Knox's placing false evidence against innocent people multiple times, noting btw that no court on any instance had any reasonable doubt that she had no justification, no coercion or false memory syndrome, for a filthy calunnia like that one.

Hm. You see a lot. Do you see the EDFs anywhere?

 

[Bill Williams]

I see pieces of evidence but above all their qualities, relations and context. I always try consider things altogether, a hypotheses always to be faced with its alternative.
I see the bathmat print, which has a 30mm wide toe mark, a toe too short for Rudy an a plantar arch curvature different from Rudy, but I also note that the bathmat prints have no trail leading to them or coming from them and are surrounded by clean floor with no other print or stain.
I see the many testimonies, and I understand the are credible, while the scenario that they are all wrong is not reasonable.
I see physics evidence of staging a burglary, and alternative not plausible.
I see luminol stains, and their set of qualities, manifestly indicating at least two different perpetrators.
I see the altering of crime scene and I see there is no consistent lone perpetrator scenario that explains physical evidence.
I see the trail of shoeprints walking out straight, not locking the door, and related to the traces if a person, with different set of qualities compared to the luminol prints.
I close no eye on Guede's statements from Germany, not at all. But I note he says a series of incriminating things against Knox in the same conversation.
I see, this very important to me, the autopsy report, and I see obvious evidence of multiple perpetrators (simplistic rhetoric about number of experts saying etc. doesn't work with me).
I see there is no plausible alternative for substance and dynamic to explain the luminol prints.
I see DNA results on stains. I see the DNA findings in knife, on bra clasp. I see the knife imprint on bed.
I see Knox's lamp inside the murder room.
I see the endless series of lies by RS and AK, endless series of grotesque inconsistencies before and after the police interrogation.
I see Knox's placing false evidence against innocent people multiple times, noting btw that no court on any instance had any reasonable doubt that she had no justification, no coercion or false memory syndrome, for a filthy calunnia like that one.

You see wrongly.

Just to remark on the one hilight above - this is a reason why I believe you reject Judge Massei's 2010 motivations report, even in convicting the pair. You are in agreement with little that Massei decides, most notably here it was that he was the one who reported that 8 of nine experts who testified to his court could not rule out a single attacker.

Apparently, you can. And you have to disrespect a judge to do it.

The reason I suspect that you dismiss much of Massei, other than his conclusion, is that you are a slave to Mignini's and Comodi's now disproven factoids and theories - many of which were never agreed to by any of the courts. Indeed, when the 2013 ISC overturned Hellmanns verdict, they specifically said to re-invesigate/reconsider the sex-game gone wrong theory.

Which neither Crini nor Nencini did in the Florence trial. Neither Crini nor Nencini gave that bit of Mignini-lunacy any credence at all.

Above all, Machiavelli, you see wrongly because you are too tied to Mignini who is long since discredited.

 

[Kauffer]

I don't know him, but I noticed he has degrees from Princeton and Yale, so he might be kind of smart. Probably at least Mensa-smart.

Also, he's from Brooklyn, so he might be kind of tough. Probably tougher than most erstwhile triathletes.

What's even more remarkable is that he was a professional prosecutor for 23 years, including during the initial Italy v. Knox trial. And here he is saying that LCN can't be admitted in a criminal case.


http://judges.newyorklawjournal.com...ounty,_Criminal/Mark_Dwyer/Mark_Dwyer-609.xml


ETA: He was Morgenthau's first deputy. That's kind of a big deal.

Yes.

I noticed this too :

Member, American Bar Association Task Force on Biological Evidence, 2003 - 2006

Member, New York State Bar Association, Task Force on Wrongful Convictions

He has good form.

Nice.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes.

I noticed this too :

Member, American Bar Association Task Force on Biological Evidence, 2003 - 2006

Member, New York State Bar Association, Task Force on Wrongful Convictions

He has good form.

Nice.

LOL. This is the gift that keeps giving. Here's Mark Dwyer weighing in on the use of LCN testing ("difficult evidentiary issues") to justify a plea deal with Lil' Wayne.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/nyregion/23lilwayne.html

 

[Antony]

I see pieces of evidence but above all their qualities, relations and context. I always try consider things altogether, a hypotheses always to be faced with its alternative.
I see the bathmat print, which has a 30mm wide toe mark, a toe too short for Rudy an a plantar arch curvature different from Rudy, but I also note that the bathmat prints have no trail leading to them or coming from them and are surrounded by clean floor with no other print or stain.
I see the many testimonies, and I understand the are credible, while the scenario that they are all wrong is not reasonable.
I see physics evidence of staging a burglary, and alternative not plausible.
I see luminol stains, and their set of qualities, manifestly indicating at least two different perpetrators.
I see the altering of crime scene and I see there is no consistent lone perpetrator scenario that explains physical evidence.
I see the trail of shoeprints walking out straight, not locking the door, and related to the traces if a person, with different set of qualities compared to the luminol prints.
I close no eye on Guede's statements from Germany, not at all. But I note he says a series of incriminating things against Knox in the same conversation.
I see, this very important to me, the autopsy report, and I see obvious evidence of multiple perpetrators (simplistic rhetoric about number of experts saying etc. doesn't work with me).
I see there is no plausible alternative for substance and dynamic to explain the luminol prints.
I see DNA results on stains. I see the DNA findings in knife, on bra clasp. I see the knife imprint on bed.
I see Knox's lamp inside the murder room.
I see the endless series of lies by RS and AK, endless series of grotesque inconsistencies before and after the police interrogation.
I see Knox's placing false evidence against innocent people multiple times, noting btw that no court on any instance had any reasonable doubt that she had no justification, no coercion or false memory syndrome, for a filthy calunnia like that one.

In addition to that, I read documentation and know contexts, people and procedure, and don't maintain the delusional false narratives and nonsensical conspiracy theories of the Knox supporters.

This just shows that when you choose to make up your own facts, you can convince yourself of anything you like. All your so-called "evidence" is either invented or meaningless, as has been explained here numerous times.

On the other hand, there is massive genuine evidence of gross prosecutorial misconduct (such as destruction, concealment and fabrication of evidence) and corrupt judicial procedure.

 

[acbytesla]

I see pieces of evidence but above all their qualities, relations and context. I always try consider things altogether, a hypotheses always to be faced with its alternative.
I see the bathmat print, which has a 30mm wide toe mark, a toe too short for Rudy an a plantar arch curvature different from Rudy, but I also note that the bathmat prints have no trail leading to them or coming from them and are surrounded by clean floor with no other print or stain.
I see the many testimonies, and I understand the are credible, while the scenario that they are all wrong is not reasonable.
I see physics evidence of staging a burglary, and alternative not plausible.
I see luminol stains, and their set of qualities, manifestly indicating at least two different perpetrators.
I see the altering of crime scene and I see there is no consistent lone perpetrator scenario that explains physical evidence.
I see the trail of shoeprints walking out straight, not locking the door, and related to the traces if a person, with different set of qualities compared to the luminol prints.
I close no eye on Guede's statements from Germany, not at all. But I note he says a series of incriminating things against Knox in the same conversation.
I see, this very important to me, the autopsy report, and I see obvious evidence of multiple perpetrators (simplistic rhetoric about number of experts saying etc. doesn't work with me).
I see there is no plausible alternative for substance and dynamic to explain the luminol prints.
I see DNA results on stains. I see the DNA findings in knife, on bra clasp. I see the knife imprint on bed.
I see Knox's lamp inside the murder room.
I see the endless series of lies by RS and AK, endless series of grotesque inconsistencies before and after the police interrogation.
I see Knox's placing false evidence against innocent people multiple times, noting btw that no court on any instance had any reasonable doubt that she had no justification, no coercion or false memory syndrome, for a filthy calunnia like that one.

In addition to that, I read documentation and know contexts, people and procedure, and don't maintain the delusional false narratives and nonsensical conspiracy theories of the Knox supporters.

As I said, delusional. But don't worry, it seems that a few of your Italian brethren suffer from the same malady. Fortunately, not all of them.What you see is the distortion of your own lens of confirmation bias.

What's totally bizarre, is that you are twisting the evidence, ignoring what you choose. You have zero evidence of any communication ever between Rudy and Amanda or Raffaele EVER. You ignore that the murder took place between 9 and 10 pm. You suggest that the burglary was staged but ignore the fact that there is no physical evidence that supports that. There is no motive whatsoever. You believe that the most absurd knife was the murder weapon despite that ithe doesn't match the outline of the knife on the sheet. Or the simple fact that if the killer used that knife they surely would have sliced open their own hand. Note, no cuts on Amanda or Raffaele and Rudy is the one with the cut on his hand.

Delusional

 

[Kauffer]

LOL. This is the gift that keeps giving. Here's Mark Dwyer weighing in on the use of LCN testing ("difficult evidentiary issues") to justify a plea deal with Lil' Wayne.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/nyregion/23lilwayne.html

I think you'll like this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/9115916/The-case-against-DNA.html

Kercher case gets a mention too:

"Yet, in a perverse way, this dependency has become a problem. In the Amanda Knox trial, the Italian police presented virtually no other evidence that the 24-year-old American university student had murdered her English flatmate Meredith Kercher. With no obvious motive, no witnesses, no confessions and very little in the way of circumstantial evidence, the Italian prosecutors built a case almost entirely around the finding of Ms Knox’s DNA on the knife used to slash Ms Kercher’s throat. The defence was able to blow gaping holes in the case, demonstrating that the DNA samples could have been contaminated by stray DNA, misinterpreted, or have an innocent explanation. A damning review of the DNA evidence by a team of American experts suggested that it was mishandled and wrongly analysed."

It's also about the face off between the ideas of David Balding and Allan Jamieson on the reliability question. Jamieson is the guy who's been right at the business end of the challenge to LCN work in the UK:

“Does anyone realise how easy it is to leave a couple of cells of your DNA somewhere?” he asks rhetorically. “You could shake my hand and I could put that hand down hundreds of miles away and leave your cells behind. In many cases, the question is not ‘Is it my DNA?’, but ‘How did it get there?’”

 

[Ken Dine]

Vecchiotti is not a fool - she is a fraud. Of course it is possible to quote her own answers.

Seems rather clear, from her words - and those of Hellmann - that she claims she had all what she requested, that she did not request raw data (and she points out "I requested the electropherograms"), and she is not interested in having raw data (those are not data that have an interest to her):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347455b568c117256.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347455b56932377ef.jpg[/qimg]

The Raw Data Files would include the positive and negative test controls of everything tested, and everyone was interested in those since they could prove a contamination event in Stef's lab.

You do understand what a negative test control is, right? I'm guessing you don't since you've been arguing that negative test controls were unnecessary to review, which is preposterous!

As for your quoted Vecchiotti comment while testifying, you seem to be seeing more in it than I do:

Vecchiotti: "abbiamo già dati scientifici, abbiamo gli elettroferogrammi che ci interessano”

Google translate:

Vecchiotti: "we have scientific data , we [have] electropherograms that interest us”

Vecchiotti didn't say they received everything they asked for in that comment.

There's also the FACT that Stefanoni had admitted that her testing of 36B on the knife wasn't up to scientific standards, and that admission alone knocked out most of the DNA evidence tying Amanda & Raffaele to the crime.

Oh no I have not been proven wrong on anything of any relevance, certainly not over the last week.

I don't know why the folks here suffer of this hallucinatory problem.

YEPPERS, there are some delusional people around here, alrighty!

 

[Diocletus]

I think you'll like this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/9115916/The-case-against-DNA.html

Kercher case gets a mention too:

"Yet, in a perverse way, this dependency has become a problem. In the Amanda Knox trial, the Italian police presented virtually no other evidence that the 24-year-old American university student had murdered her English flatmate Meredith Kercher. With no obvious motive, no witnesses, no confessions and very little in the way of circumstantial evidence, the Italian prosecutors built a case almost entirely around the finding of Ms Knox’s DNA on the knife used to slash Ms Kercher’s throat. The defence was able to blow gaping holes in the case, demonstrating that the DNA samples could have been contaminated by stray DNA, misinterpreted, or have an innocent explanation. A damning review of the DNA evidence by a team of American experts suggested that it was mishandled and wrongly analysed."

It's also about the face off between the ideas of David Balding and Allan Jamieson on the reliability question. Jamieson is the guy who's been right at the business end of the challenge to LCN work in the UK:

“Does anyone realise how easy it is to leave a couple of cells of your DNA somewhere?” he asks rhetorically. “You could shake my hand and I could put that hand down hundreds of miles away and leave your cells behind. In many cases, the question is not ‘Is it my DNA?’, but ‘How did it get there?’”

Strange about Balding. He's just a statistics guy, and yet he keeps popping up in discussions about the weaknesses/strengths of DNA science.

 

[Kauffer]

Strange about Balding. He's just a statistics guy, and yet he keeps popping up in discussions about the weaknesses/strengths of DNA science.

Yes that's exactly right. He's not lab based. IIRC when quizzed on the question of EDFs, he didn't know what they were.

His position on DNA mixtures appears to be "Give me the DNA profile of your suspect and the epgs from your mixture and I'll tell you the probability of his profile being part of the mixture". He doesn't drill into the data and produce his own epgs. His analysis implicitly trusts the veracity of the epgs he's been given.

This is a flavour of his attitude:

"Every crime sample that was ever collected was contaminated. Even in the most pristine conditions in a laboratory, you cannot have a DNA-free environment,"

"The point is you have to allow for that to do a correct evaluation of the evidence; all of that kind of contamination just isn't a problem, as it's not going to match. The only contamination that matters is something that would have got the suspect's DNA."
"A lot of people walked in and out of the room, there's been a lot of controversy about that. But could any of that have brought Sollecito's DNA into the room? There's no doubt that his DNA is on the bra clasp; the only question is how it got there."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24534110