Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

I think it is worth considering the uniqueness of the knife.
1) Prior to the visit to Sollecito's the assumption about the murder weapon was that based on the injuries inflicted and the imprint of the knife on the sheet the murder weapon was a small pocket or clasp knife.
2) Sollecito's flat had been empty since his detention despite this there was a claim that there was a smell of bleach, a smell that rapidly disperses.
3) A knife that was not a fit to the assumed murder weapon was picked because it was 'clean'. Other knives from Knox's flat were not collected for testing.
4) The knife was repackaged in the police station exposing it to contamination for no good reason.
5) The need to justify the swab by the presence of a mark on the knife blade is odd. It would be entirely reasonable just to swab the knife blade regardless of any mark. Yet this seems an important element - why?
6) the quantification on samples A,B,C from the knife were falsely reported as being by RTPCR (which only sample D, E, F, G were quantified by).
7) Sample B was reported as being positive for DNA when in fact it was nehative by Qubit.
8) Sample C was negative by Qubit but not put through for typing. Uniquely sample B tested negative for DNA but was put through for typing.
9) Sample B was concentrated although in theory Stefanoni did not know how much DNA was in the sample (a negative Qubit result could include levels of DNA that did not need concentrating. How did she know it needed concentrating?

There are so many unique features about the processing of sample B from the knife that it justifies a full explanation.Why was this sample treated so differently from every other? This is particularly concerning given how critical the results are in the case against Sollecito / Knox.

 

[Diocletus]

I think it is worth considering the uniqueness of the knife.
1) Prior to the visit to Sollecito's the assumption about the murder weapon was that based on the injuries inflicted and the imprint of the knife on the sheet the murder weapon was a small pocket or clasp knife.
2) Sollecito's flat had been empty since his detention despite this there was a claim that there was a smell of bleach, a smell that rapidly disperses.
3) A knife that was not a fit to the assumed murder weapon was picked because it was 'clean'. Other knives from Knox's flat were not collected for testing.
4) The knife was repackaged in the police station exposing it to contamination for no good reason.
5) The need to justify the swab by the presence of a mark on the knife blade is odd. It would be entirely reasonable just to swab the knife blade regardless of any mark. Yet this seems an important element - why?
6) the quantification on samples A,B,C from the knife were falsely reported as being by RTPCR (which only sample D, E, F, G were quantified by).
7) Sample B was reported as being positive for DNA when in fact it was nehative by Qubit.
8) Sample C was negative by Qubit but not put through for typing. Uniquely sample B tested negative for DNA but was put through for typing.
9) Sample B was concentrated although in theory Stefanoni did not know how much DNA was in the sample (a negative Qubit result could include levels of DNA that did not need concentrating. How did she know it needed concentrating?

There are so many unique features about the processing of sample B from the knife that it justifies a full explanation.Why was this sample treated so differently from every other? This is particularly concerning given how critical the results are in the case against Sollecito / Knox.

36c probably was amplified. It's just that the results have been hidden. See amplification serial number 772, here: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/batch-two-kitchen-knife-36b-suppression-90-profiles/

As to why she would hide 36c's profile, and not 36b, I can only imagine that 36c is a mess.

 

[acbytesla]

36c probably was amplified. It's just that the results have been hidden. See amplification serial number 772, here: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/batch-two-kitchen-knife-36b-suppression-90-profiles/

As to why she would hide 36c's profile, and not 36b, I can only imagine that 36c is a mess.

The refusal to provide the EDFs is a huge red flag. There is simply no legitimate reason to not do so. It demonstrates that Stefanoni is hiding something when she should be beyond reproach.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

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 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.

Thank you, Ken. I noticed that particular testimony did not back up what Machiavelli was asserting when I asked for a cite, but I haven't had the time to address it. It looks intimidating with all those circles and arrows and a paragraph for each one... (do you know what song that comes from?) but nowhere in any of that testimony does Vecchiotti state she didn't need the raw data files.

 

[Planigale]

36c probably was amplified. It's just that the results have been hidden. See amplification serial number 772, here: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/batch-two-kitchen-knife-36b-suppression-90-profiles/

As to why she would hide 36c's profile, and not 36b, I can only imagine that 36c is a mess.

Thanks I think you are right. I could not find the typing, but there are references to it being typed. So I guess you are right it was typed but the result concealed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you, Ken. I noticed that particular testimony did not back up what Machiavelli was asserting when I asked for a cite, but I haven't had the time to address it. It looks intimidating with all those circles and arrows and a paragraph for each one... (do you know what song that comes from?) but nowhere in any of that testimony does Vecchiotti state she didn't need the raw data files.

I'm shocked! Why would Machiavelli lie about something like that? Shocked, I say, shocked.

 

[Antony]

I think it is worth considering the uniqueness of the knife.
1) Prior to the visit to Sollecito's the assumption about the murder weapon was that based on the injuries inflicted and the imprint of the knife on the sheet the murder weapon was a small pocket or clasp knife.
2) Sollecito's flat had been empty since his detention despite this there was a claim that there was a smell of bleach, a smell that rapidly disperses.
3) A knife that was not a fit to the assumed murder weapon was picked because it was 'clean'. Other knives from Knox's flat were not collected for testing.
4) The knife was repackaged in the police station exposing it to contamination for no good reason.
5) The need to justify the swab by the presence of a mark on the knife blade is odd. It would be entirely reasonable just to swab the knife blade regardless of any mark. Yet this seems an important element - why?
6) the quantification on samples A,B,C from the knife were falsely reported as being by RTPCR (which only sample D, E, F, G were quantified by).
7) Sample B was reported as being positive for DNA when in fact it was nehative by Qubit.
8) Sample C was negative by Qubit but not put through for typing. Uniquely sample B tested negative for DNA but was put through for typing.
9) Sample B was concentrated although in theory Stefanoni did not know how much DNA was in the sample (a negative Qubit result could include levels of DNA that did not need concentrating. How did she know it needed concentrating?

There are so many unique features about the processing of sample B from the knife that it justifies a full explanation.Why was this sample treated so differently from every other? This is particularly concerning given how critical the results are in the case against Sollecito / Knox.

... or, to be more accurate, "how critical the results were made to be". There is no way a speck of Meredith's DNA, even if genuine, could prove the knife to be the murder weapon - or even make it at all plausible.

 

[Planigale]

... or, to be more accurate, "how critical the results were made to be". There is no way a speck of Meredith's DNA, even if genuine, could prove the knife to be the murder weapon - or even make it at all plausible.

I think this is the critical issue with LCN / trace DNA. It is still poorly understood how much secondary + transmission occurs when dealing with such low amounts of DNA. When you start getting into mixed DNA it is even less certain. Clearly more work needs to be done. I think it is incumbent on governments to fund studies on DNA if they want to use it in law enforcement.

 

[carbonjam72]

DNA must be viewed in context

I think this is the critical issue with LCN / trace DNA. It is still poorly understood how much secondary + transmission occurs when dealing with such low amounts of DNA. When you start getting into mixed DNA it is even less certain. Clearly more work needs to be done. I think it is incumbent on governments to fund studies on DNA if they want to use it in law enforcement.

I also want to join anthony's point, if I understand correctly, the non DNA analytical issue of context of a crime scene.

In this case, a murder confined in a small room, with a large loss of blood, bearing footrpints of only one person, whose identity and responsibility for making those foot prints/tracks is established,

Further, palmprints and fingerprints, also in wet blood hence dated to the time of the crime, also only relating to the same lone person, add validity to the premise of a single attacker.

A perfectly valid reading of DNA of Amanda or Raf from within the murder room, but not associated in a location or context that could infer guilt, would not overcome the absence of any other physical sign of additional assailants, imo.

DNA does not exist in a vacuum.

Dr Mark Waterbury said that its a scientific impossibility for anyone to have committed this violent crime along with Rudy Guede, and not have left a similar amount of physical evidence behind, as Rudy Guede did.

A scientific impossibility.

Of course, Mach disagrees. But what are you gonna do?

 

[Grinder]

I think this is the critical issue with LCN / trace DNA. It is still poorly understood how much secondary + transmission occurs when dealing with such low amounts of DNA. When you start getting into mixed DNA it is even less certain. Clearly more work needs to be done. I think it is incumbent on governments to fund studies on DNA if they want to use it in law enforcement.

While I'm sure your right, I think it is nearly impossible for either judges or jurors to be able to understand the science. If a judge in Italy can succumb to something as a simple as not understanding that contamination must be proven or at a minimum probable then what hope is there for a judge to understand the rest?

The only way LCN DNA can be evaluated is by a neutral expert doing a blind analysis. The experts would have been given the EDFs and ALL the data produced by the lab and made their own conclusions. The court could still have the advocates but at least the deciders would have some basis to decide.

It seems clear that the Massei court basically shrugged and said well the defense said things but we have no good reason to doubt our partners the police and their lab.

The footprints should have been put through a "lineup" with a dozen similar feet and see if they could actually matched.

 

[Bill Williams]

... or, to be more accurate, "how critical the results were made to be". There is no way a speck of Meredith's DNA, even if genuine, could prove the knife to be the murder weapon - or even make it at all plausible.

..... especially with no blood found on the knife, and further that the police were claiming it had been cleaned with bleach.

The second most amazing thing is that they tried to get away with it.

The first most amazing thing is that they almost did!

 

[Strozzi]

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!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd51816a9a7.jpg[/qimg]

I have seen the video of Stefanoni holding, dropping, and then picking up the bra clasp with her dirty gloves, but this is the first time I have seen the two photographs (frames from the video) linked above. Look precisely at what part of the fabric clasp Stefanoni is holding between her dirty-gloved thumb and finger. It is the edge of the fabric clasp that contains the hook! She is precisely grabbing it by the hook with her fingers. Her hold is precisely on target. As a forensic collection and processing technician, Stefanoni is not ignorant of various edges of small objects - she must know what part she is grasping and is adept at manipulating small objects. I have to conclude that she knows she is grasping the hooks in her (not fresh) gloved thumb and finger.

 

[Vixen]

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.

This is because the DNA is a helix structure - a continous string - and therefore cannot get mixed up with other random allelles.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Translated: No person from Seattle could possibly be capable of any crime.

 

[Vixen]

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.

ROFLMAOABAG This was not found by any court.

 

[Vixen]

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

Logical fallacy: try flippancy.

 

[Vixen]

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.

1 Logical fallacy: appealing to the [biased] crowd.

2 Logical fallacy: having applied logical fallacy 1, no.2 is ipso facto a logical fallacy.

 

[Vixen]

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.

What happened after 2006? Was he debarred?

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you, Ken. I noticed that particular testimony did not back up what Machiavelli was asserting when I asked for a cite, but I haven't had the time to address it. It looks intimidating with all those circles and arrows and a paragraph for each one... (do you know what song that comes from?) but nowhere in any of that testimony does Vecchiotti state she didn't need the raw data files.

This comment is really strange.

Vecchiotti says she is not interested in the most explicit way.
Besides saying they didn't talk about it, and pointing out she asked something else, she says she has all what was of her interest.

I don't understand how someone could possibly read Vecchiotti's answer in some other way, and I fail to imagine what you read in her words.

I am seriously surprised by you people's failure to see implications of things.

 

[Vixen]

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?

You are old Judge O'Dwyer the young man said
You do cartwheels and splits and delight
In being contrary; it's extraordinary
Do you think at your age it is right?