Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

You mean Vechiotti could have consulted them? She only had to ask? Can we see them? Where are the 8th October 2008 records?

Vechiotti simply noted that the controls were not with the epgs and noted in testimony that they they should have been supplied. She further noted that she had asked for them more than once. The conclusions that she came to did not depend on them.

If you think her conclusions did depend on them, then cite directly from the Cand V report to identify the statements made that you believe are unsustainable through lack of evidence?

Vecchiotti's conclusions about her deeming "probable" a laboratory contamination, are logically depending from the fact that - according to her - she could not see the negative controls.
This is a key logical evidence, because negative controls can disprove an hypothesys of laboratory contamination: if there is a laboratory contamination, that is expected to contaminate both the sample and the negative controls (in fact, also samples and negative controls of about 100 tests that were run over the previous week were analysed by Novelli, who found no trace of laboratoty contamination).

So, Vecchiotti "uses" the negative controls as a topic from which she derives important conclusions. If she had negative controls proving abbsence of laboratory contamination, she would have had to delete all the part of her report and conclusions where she speculates about reasons of laboratory contamination.

In fact what Vecchiotti does is even worse. Because Stefanoni's testimony of Oct. 2008 is where Stefanoni is thoroughly cross-questioned about the procedures she employs in her laboratory, during which she talks about procedures Vecchiotti says she didn't know about, she even says she has no information about whether Stefanoni cleans her laboratory with alcohol. Stefanoni also deposits the negative controls with the courts, during that same hearing, before Pascali, and this is all put in records.
Vecchiotti says she ignores everything about this. She says she didn't know that negative controls were put into the trial file (despite they are a topic of Stefanoni's Oct. 2008 testimony).

This way, Vecchiotti's conclusions depend on negative controls.

The allegation that she asked for negative controls and the Scientific Police refused to provide them, is a kind of suggestion Vecchiotti makes in July 2010, and this in fact is in awkward contradiction with what Vecchiotti stated in May 2010: that Stefanoni provided complete cooperation, that Setefanoni provided her even more documentation than what she requested, that she had all the documentation she asked for, and that she was not intrested in raw data (so negative controls would be of no use).

 

[Kauffer]

Well, may have convicted them, but he also planted the seeds of the destruction of the conviction: his own words about the interrogation render the conviction unsustainable under Art 6. I think he knew that.

Yes I think he may well have known. The particular passages you refer to are devastating to any possible defence Italy could offer the ECHR.

 

[Antony]

Lol!

It's the other way around. The fact is that there is would be enough evidence of guilt beyond reasonabe doubt even without any DNA evidence.Pieces of DNA evidence however also exist. They are not perfect, like all pieces of circumstantial evidence, but they are valid, genuine, working piece of evidence that contribute drawing a logical conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It's difficult to see how anyone can make a statement this deluded and still put on an act of speaking from authority.

 

[Kauffer]

Vecchiotti's conclusions about her deeming "probable" a laboratory contamination, are logically depending from the fact that - according to her - she could not see the negative controls.
This is a key logical evidence, because negative controls can disprove an hypothesys of laboratory contamination: if there is a laboratory contamination, that is expected to contaminate both the sample and the negative controls (in fact, also samples and negative controls of about 100 tests that were run over the previous week were analysed by Novelli, who found no trace of laboratoty contamination).

So, Vecchiotti "uses" the negative controls as a topic from which she derives important conclusions. If she had negative controls proving abbsence of laboratory contamination, she would have had to delete all the part of her report and conclusions where she speculates about reasons of laboratory contamination.

In fact what Vecchiotti does is even worse. Because Stefanoni's testimony of Oct. 2008 is where Stefanoni is thoroughly cross-questioned about the procedures she employs in her laboratory, during which she talks about procedures Vecchiotti says she didn't know about, she even says she has no information about whether Stefanoni cleans her laboratory with alcohol. Stefanoni also deposits the negative controls with the courts, during that same hearing, before Pascali, and this is all put in records.
Vecchiotti says she ignores everything about this. She says she didn't know that negative controls were put into the trial file (despite they are a topic of Stefanoni's Oct. 2008 testimony).

This way, Vecchiotti's conclusions depend on negative controls.

The allegation that she asked for negative controls and the Scientific Police refused to provide them, is a kind of suggestion Vecchiotti makes in July 2010, and this in fact is in awkward contradiction with what Vecchiotti stated in May 2010: that Stefanoni provided complete cooperation, that Setefanoni provided her even more documentation than what she requested, that she had all the documentation she asked for, and that she was not intrested in raw data (so negative controls would be of no use).

Well at least you now admit that Vechiotti asked for the controls. That's a start.

Produce one complete statement Vechiotti makes in her report about contamination, where you believe she would have needed the controls in order to make the statement.

Since you say: "negative controls can disprove an hypothesys of laboratory contamination", then why on earth would Stefanoni not make absolutely sure that Vechiotti saw them - handed them to her personally perhaps with great theatre, proudly verifying the quality of her work? Yet, Vechiotti says she asked for them more than once but didn't get them. Wasn't Stefanoni that interested in defending her reputation to these baseless allegations that her work was bunk? Or could it be instead that she had a particular interest in ensuring that the means of verifying the quality of her work should be kept away from scrutiny?

According to you, Vechiotti was referred to a court submission of such information from three years earlier!

But, where is that submission? Where are the controls deposited with the court in October 2008? Have you got them?

 

[Machiavelli]

When I asked you once why there is no evidence at all of Amanda in Kercher's room and why there are no shoeprints in blood belonging to Sollecito in the room proving that he walked out of the room after tearing off the bra, your ludicrous answer was that they both ran away immediately after the murder, presumably before Kercher had a chance to bleed all over them!

(...)

There evidence of Knox and Sollecito of the same magnitute of evidence of Guede. There is not much phisical evidence that can be certainly attributed to Knox and Sollecito of presence during the murder, mostly for the same reason why there is no much evidence of Guede's presence there during the murder.
Guede left only one half shoeprint in blood - actually it is more than one print, but it is only the same print repeating itself - in fact it is merely compatible with a pair of shoes that we indirectly know Guede possessed, and thus attribution is something done by inference.
But the trail of such prints from a left shoe, is subsequent to the murder: it's part of a trail of staps walking out, shoeprints are only located in an area of the room near the exit, not around the body and not close where the fatal blow was struck.
There was also one fingerprint that was attributable to Guede, but just one. It's not much. There were multiple prints which did't belong to Guede btw, and there were handprints that were not attributed to anyone.
Guede left minimum amounts of DNA, while Knox's DNA would not be detactable on many spots in the room, items nor on Meredith's body, because a female has no Y-haplotype that can be spot, and Meredith's DNA is too abundant.

So the "reason" why the traces are not many, is just before your eyes: you only have to accept that there were not so many traces of Guede as you think. And thus, you should just review your prejudice about the amount and kind of alleged "physical evidence" attributable with certainty to a specific subject.

On the other hand, you may even reconsider your prejudice in the light of the fact that not a single trace attributable to Guede was found in the bathroom, where the murderer washed his hands (allegedly Guede had cuts on his fingers).

Of course I think that all three run away immediataly, and I don't think that's a ludicrous scenario at all (also, there is a credible testimony that describes precisely this dynamic).

To conclude, also, it may be worth not to forget that I strongly believe there is physical evidence of multiple perpetrators, and in this regards I attribute great importance to the autopsy report.
I consider autopsy report showing multiple perpetrators is evidence of Knox and Sollecito in the room at the time of the murder.
If you think autopsy does not show multiple perpetrators, this would mean we have diametrically opposite views on a key aspect of the evidence, which would make our disagreement unbredgeable.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well at least you now admit that Vechiotti asked for the controls. That's a start.
(...)

Please read paying more attention: ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Vecchiotti did NOT ask for the controls.

Vecchiotti, in July 2010 only says she asked the controls.
But it's a lie. In reality, she had not. And in fact, she had said exactly the opposite of that on previous hearing of May 2010 (she said all requests had been fulfilled, that Stefanoni provided her even more documentation than she requested).

 

[Planigale]

Vecchiotti's conclusions about her deeming "probable" a laboratory contamination, are logically depending from the fact that - according to her - she could not see the negative controls.
This is a key logical evidence, because negative controls can disprove an hypothesys of laboratory contamination: if there is a laboratory contamination, that is expected to contaminate both the sample and the negative controls (in fact, also samples and negative controls of about 100 tests that were run over the previous week were analysed by Novelli, who found no trace of laboratoty contamination).

So, Vecchiotti "uses" the negative controls as a topic from which she derives important conclusions. If she had negative controls proving abbsence of laboratory contamination, she would have had to delete all the part of her report and conclusions where she speculates about reasons of laboratory contamination.

In fact what Vecchiotti does is even worse. Because Stefanoni's testimony of Oct. 2008 is where Stefanoni is thoroughly cross-questioned about the procedures she employs in her laboratory, during which she talks about procedures Vecchiotti says she didn't know about, she even says she has no information about whether Stefanoni cleans her laboratory with alcohol. Stefanoni also deposits the negative controls with the courts, during that same hearing, before Pascali, and this is all put in records.
Vecchiotti says she ignores everything about this. She says she didn't know that negative controls were put into the trial file (despite they are a topic of Stefanoni's Oct. 2008 testimony).

This way, Vecchiotti's conclusions depend on negative controls.

The allegation that she asked for negative controls and the Scientific Police refused to provide them, is a kind of suggestion Vecchiotti makes in July 2010, and this in fact is in awkward contradiction with what Vecchiotti stated in May 2010: that Stefanoni provided complete cooperation, that Setefanoni provided her even more documentation than what she requested, that she had all the documentation she asked for, and that she was not intrested in raw data (so negative controls would be of no use).

I think we should be clear.
If the negative controls are contaminated it does not meant the test samples are. It just means they might well be. If the negative controls are uncontaminated it does not mean the test samples cannot be. It is an accepted policy that if negative controls are contaminated one will assume that results from the test samples are unreliable.

The negative controls must be treated the same way as the test samples. The negative controls from any previous runs are irrelevant. There are some excellent papers on contamination in DNA testing. Essentially even the best labs have a background rate of contamination. For Steffanoni to say that she is not aware of contamination is a Redlight. Every lab has some. If she is unaware this means the systems to detect contamination are deficient.

No paper would be accepted for publication without documenting adequate controls. Steffanoni should not submit to the court any results without including the results of negative controls. She should never have been asked for them, they should have been submitted.

 

[Strozzi]

Yet you still don't seem to get it. I couldn't care less about why Vecchiotti could need or not need the data, or why she thought she wouldn't need the data.

(btw, what I think is there was no scientific reason for her to need or not need the data, she didn't need the data because she actually didn't need any information at all, her work was just fake, it was a fraud; I also think she didn't want the raw data, simply for the same reason why the defence didn't request them during the Hellmann trial; but let aside my interpretation of events for a moment, and let's focus on facts).

The reason why Vecchiotti doesn't want the data is a non-topic to me, I start from a non-assumption about that, I set aside speculations on that first, they are not part of the assumption.

What I am interested into, instead, is the fact that Vecchiotti's report has an assumption about negative controls as a key structural element to draw some conclusions, which is a reasoning in spectacular contradiction with the assumption that the raw data would be of no interest for her conclusions.

This is not the only one, it is just one of the elements from which we can deduce that Vecchiotti's work was manifestly fraudulent.

Machiavelli, I am sure you have discussed your views with other Italians. I am curious what other Italians think of this? I could read other sites for comments, but I would like to understand the views of Italians who have discussed these issues with you because I assume that they are fairly well informed on the case. That makes their views of interest to me.

 

[Numbers]

Vecchiotti's conclusions about her deeming "probable" a laboratory contamination, are logically depending from the fact that - according to her - she could not see the negative controls.
This is a key logical evidence, because negative controls can disprove an hypothesys of laboratory contamination: if there is a laboratory contamination, that is expected to contaminate both the sample and the negative controls (in fact, also samples and negative controls of about 100 tests that were run over the previous week were analysed by Novelli, who found no trace of laboratoty contamination).

....

The nonsensical statements in this quoted post need some correction for those who wish to be aware of the true situation.

Stefanoni did supply written information with information on a relatively small number of negative controls that she had run. Written information on many other negative controls was not provided.

The written information on the negative controls demonstrated that there was contamination in Stefanoni's lab. The level of contamination was similar to the amount of DNA alleged to have been found on the knife blade.

The data and an analysis of the contaminated negative controls are provided in:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

The first few paragraphs of that site are reproduced here:

The lab records that were withheld until half way through the trial demonstrate at least two instances of laboratory contamination in negative controls. These contamination events were random, low-quantity contaminations in the Real Time PCR process. Moreover, the records show that Patrizia Stefanoni knew about the contamination and reacted to it, but nevertheless, she gave testimony that wrongly convinced the courts that her laboratory was contamination-free. To the contrary, however, the laboratory’s own records demonstrate that the laboratory was susceptible to exactly the kind of contamination that would have generated the profiles attributed to the kitchen knife (Rep. 36b) and bra clasp (Rep. 165).

It is simple to find the contaminated negative control in Batch 4. Stefanoni’s own quantification results for Real Time run no. 564 show the negative control (NTC, or No Template Control) located at wells B10-12, and well B11 shows a “Ct” value of 34.30. (Quantificazione p. 14)

 

[Kauffer]

There evidence of Knox and Sollecito of the same magnitute of evidence of Guede. There is not much phisical evidence that can be certainly attributed to Knox and Sollecito of presence during the murder, mostly for the same reason why there is no much evidence of Guede's presence there during the murder.
Guede left only one half shoeprint in blood - actually it is more than one print, but it is only the same print repeating itself - in fact it is merely compatible with a pair of shoes that we indirectly know Guede possessed, and thus attribution is something done by inference.
But the trail of such prints from a left shoe, is subsequent to the murder: it's part of a trail of staps walking out, shoeprints are only located in an area of the room near the exit, not around the body and not close where the fatal blow was struck.
There was also one fingerprint that was attributable to Guede, but just one. It's not much. There were multiple prints which did't belong to Guede btw, and there were handprints that were not attributed to anyone.
Guede left minimum amounts of DNA, while Knox's DNA would not be detactable on many spots in the room, items nor on Meredith's body, because a female has no Y-haplotype that can be spot, and Meredith's DNA is too abundant.

So the "reason" why the traces are not many, is just before your eyes: you only have to accept that there were not so many traces of Guede as you think. And thus, you should just review your prejudice about the amount and kind of alleged "physical evidence" attributable with certainty to a specific subject.

On the other hand, you may even reconsider your prejudice in the light of the fact that not a single trace attributable to Guede was found in the bathroom, where the murderer washed his hands (allegedly Guede had cuts on his fingers).

Of course I think that all three run away immediataly, and I don't think that's a ludicrous scenario at all (also, there is a credible testimony that describes precisely this dynamic).

To conclude, also, it may be worth not to forget that I strongly believe there is physical evidence of multiple perpetrators, and in this regards I attribute great importance to the autopsy report.
I consider autopsy report showing multiple perpetrators is evidence of Knox and Sollecito in the room at the time of the murder.
If you think autopsy does not show multiple perpetrators, this would mean we have diametrically opposite views on a key aspect of the evidence, which would make our disagreement unbredgeable.

How do you stab Kercher to death and not immediately get blood over you? On your hands, arms, legs, torso, clothes? Why do we see no evidence of blood transfer on Ananda's clothes and at Raffaele's apartment. Why didn't Raffaele get blood on him?

Guede's shoeprints in blood and his DNA inside Kercher's vagina, convict him, unless you think he was her secret lover and he was trying to save her.

You can't seriously be suggesting that a court should agree to accept that unattributed traces can be allocated to anyone it likes and that this is real evidence of guilt?

All but one of the experts agreed that one perpetrator could have killed Kercher. Guess which expert didn't agree?

 

[Kauffer]

Please read paying more attention: ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Vecchiotti did NOT ask for the controls.

Vecchiotti, in July 2010 only says she asked the controls.
But it's a lie. In reality, she had not. And in fact, she had said exactly the opposite of that on previous hearing of May 2010 (she said all requests had been fulfilled, that Stefanoni provided her even more documentation than she requested).

What is the exact wording of the text of Vechiotti's May 2010 testimony?

Conti wrote and asked for "CD Raw data". Doesn't that include the controls?

Why was Vechiotti's July testimony to the court not impeached by Mignini? He says nothing about the "lie".

 

[Strozzi]

This is your estimate for ECHR to take action.

I wouldn't know how to estimate an ECHR timeframe. I think they have a prioritization system, that may or may not be subject to revision as events develop. And now that there's been an exoneration on the more serious charges of murder, and no one is sitting in jail, or threatening to go to jail, this case may have fallen quite low in the cue.

On the other hand, I doubt as many cases have this high a level of profile, and ECHR just looks slow footed and ineffective the longer this albatross is tied around their neck waiting for them to act on an obvious & egregious violation.

My own prediction, and I can't wait to be proven wrong, is that Marasca will reach into cassation's bag of tricks to vacate the calunnia conviction, when it issues its motivation report on the march 2015 acquittals. I think there are some squirrely statutes that basically let cassation do whatever it wants or needs to do to make things right.

Perhaps they'll say the new verdict of definitive acquittal is a logical conflict with the conviction for calunnia, and therefore, the official record has to be put in harmony, and the only way to do so is to toss the conviction?

All speculative I know. But that's my prediction, and I'm sticking to it. I say Marasca sorts out the calunnia conviction, and saves ECHR the trouble.

I hope Marasca does not reverse the calunia conviction. I want the ECHR to rule on the issues in the case and require Italy to correct it. Three Italian courts have all had a bite on this poison apple, and they all liked the taste - at great pain to Amanda. Don't let the Italian court system off the hook.

If Maresca's court resolves it critics will be able to say that the several ISC judges overstepped their authority, or were wrong, or distracted, or misunderstood the case, or were corrupted like Hellman. I want the edict to come down on the judicial process from the highest level possible. Maybe Patrick will even hear it.

And besides, I tithe to the Mason slush fund and want to see my bribe money go to a good cause. I'm sure the ECHR judges could use the money. Maybe they will all buy Ferraris or hillside villas in Tuscany.

 

[Machiavelli]

How do you stab Kercher to death and not immediately get blood over you? On your hands, arms, legs, torso, clothes? Why do we see no evidence of blood transfer on Ananda's clothes and at Raffaele's apartment. Why didn't Raffaele get blood on him?

But you don't even have evidence of blood on Guede!
Why should there be "more" evidence of blood on Guede's body, than on Knox or Sollecito's body?

And yet, there is some evidence of blood on Knox's and Sollecito's body: there are blood drops of Knox that were not likely to be there the day before and about which Knox tells urealistic stories (not knowing is she bled, etc.) and there is a footprint compatible with Sollecito and not compatible with Guede on the bathmat, with no trail coming from or going to tha bathmat, surrounded by clean floor.
And there is a series of luminol stains, some isolated barefoot shaped stains in a diluted that have a disturbing analogy with the bathmat prints in diluted blood. Several luminol and blood stains with double Knox+Meredith dna, also where it should not be (Filomena's room).
You also have Knox's lamp where it should not be, and Knox's DNA at the insertion of the blade on a knife where the victim's DNa was found.

Guede's shoeprints in blood and his DNA inside Kercher's vagina, convict him, unless you think he was her secret lover and he was trying to save her.

He is convicted in fact.
And after all, it is not his DNA nor physical evidence of his presence, but lies what convicts him. Shoes of a common model are no direct evidence against someone specific. And if he had some explanation which could not be disproved, or that could be somehow vaguely credible, we would have reasonable doubt on Guede even before the phsical evidence of his presence at the time of murder.
But also Knox's calunnia convicts her. As well as the rest of the evidence against RS and AK.

You can't seriously be suggesting that a court should agree to accept that unattributed traces can be allocated to anyone it likes and that this is real evidence of guilt?

All but one of the experts agreed that one perpetrator could have killed Kercher. Guess which expert didn't agree?

Your argument was about the alleged "lack of traces" of AK and RS that you seem to invoke as "evidence" of innocence.
I think I refuted this claim with facts.

I don't look at evidence through the eyes of "experts" (mostly defence experts btw), but through my own eyes, as it should be.
There is evidence of multiple perpetrators. No "expert" was able to bring arguments that could disprove reasons for my conclusion.

 

[Machiavelli]

The nonsensical statements in this quoted post need some correction for those who wish to be aware of the true situation.

Stefanoni did supply written information with information on a relatively small number of negative controls that she had run. Written information on many other negative controls was not provided.

The written information on the negative controls demonstrated that there was contamination in Stefanoni's lab. The level of contamination was similar to the amount of DNA alleged to have been found on the knife blade.

The data and an analysis of the contaminated negative controls are provided in:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

The first few paragraphs of that site are reproduced here:

A good example of te pro-Knox propaganda lies.

It's false.

Besides the logical point that Vecchiotti was asked to see if there was contamination of that sample, which is the only thing that matters in the setting of that appeal, and not elsewhere (nobody, parties or judges, made requests to search contamination in Stefanoni's other findings elsewhere from knife or bla fastener samples).

Besides that, as I said, the site linked above makes a false claim.

Contrarily to the site claims, no contamination is found in the negative controls of other samples on which profiles were extracted.

The site lies, presenting isolated drop-in alleles in negative controls as if they were evidence of laboratory contamination.

The Conti-Vecchiotti report (quoting another source) itself makes clear that this is not what contamination means:

"one should always expect to observe a few drop-in alleles in negative controls"

 

[Bill Williams]

But you don't even have evidence of blood on Guede!
Why should there be "more" evidence of blood on Guede's body, than on Knox or Sollecito's body?

And yet, there is some evidence of blood on Knox's and Sollecito's body: there are blood drops of Knox that were not likely to be there the day before and about which Knox tells urealistic stories (not knowing is she bled, etc.) and there is a footprint compatible with Sollecito and not compatible with Guede on the bathmat, with no trail coming from or going to tha bathmat, surrounded by clean floor.

Machiavelli, please stop. There is no truth at all to any of these claims. Please stop. This is embarrassing, if you are intending the claims you make here to substitute for evidence or truth.

And there is a series of luminol stains, some isolated barefoot shaped stains in a diluted that have a disturbing analogy with the bathmat prints in diluted blood. Several luminol and blood stains with double Knox+Meredith dna, also where it should not be (Filomena's room).

There is no "mixed blood", and "mixed dna" in an apartment they shared for 7 weeks says nothing about the murder night, unless you believe the clean-up happened BEFORE the murder, so as to leave it in a sterile condition ready to receive forensic evidence.

You also have Knox's lamp where it should not be, and Knox's DNA at the insertion of the blade on a knife where the victim's DNa was found.

This is rubbish. What was the lamp supposed to be for? What the heck does "at the insertion of the blade" even mean? This is nonsense.

He is convicted in fact.
And after all, it is not his DNA nor physical evidence of his presence, but lies what convicts him.

What do you mean? How can you say that Guede's forensic presnece inside the victim does not convict him? What a stupid response. Please answer carbonjam72's question about what the mechanics of the 27 March 2015 acquittals were, to justify you claiming something directly opposite to the court. Until you do, please stop with this.

Shoes of a common model are no direct evidence against someone specific. And if he had some explanation which could not be disproved, or that could be somehow vaguely credible, we would have reasonable doubt on Guede even before the phsical evidence of his presence at the time of murder.
But also Knox's calunnia convicts her. As well as the rest of the evidence against RS and AK.

Since they have, in fact, been acquitted, please explain the process by which Marasca got corrupted.

Your argument was about the alleged "lack of traces" of AK and RS that you seem to invoke as "evidence" of innocence.
I think I refuted this claim with facts.

You think wrong.

I don't look at evidence through the eyes of "experts" (mostly defence experts btw), but through my own eyes, as it should be.

There's you problem right there.

There is evidence of multiple perpetrators. No "expert" was able to bring arguments that could disprove reasons for my conclusion.

There is also overwhelming evidence of a single attacker. Only one expert said it had to have been multiple attackers, and eight said otherwise.

Please stop this.

 

[Kauffer]

But you don't even have evidence of blood on Guede!
Why should there be "more" evidence of blood on Guede's body, than on Knox or Sollecito's body?

And yet, there is some evidence of blood on Knox's and Sollecito's body: there are blood drops of Knox that were not likely to be there the day before and about which Knox tells urealistic stories (not knowing is she bled, etc.) and there is a footprint compatible with Sollecito and not compatible with Guede on the bathmat, with no trail coming from or going to tha bathmat, surrounded by clean floor.
And there is a series of luminol stains, some isolated barefoot shaped stains in a diluted that have a disturbing analogy with the bathmat prints in diluted blood. Several luminol and blood stains with double Knox+Meredith dna, also where it should not be (Filomena's room).
You also have Knox's lamp where it should not be, and Knox's DNA at the insertion of the blade on a knife where the victim's DNa was found.



He is convicted in fact.
And after all, it is not his DNA nor physical evidence of his presence, but lies what convicts him. Shoes of a common model are no direct evidence against someone specific. And if he had some explanation which could not be disproved, or that could be somehow vaguely credible, we would have reasonable doubt on Guede even before the phsical evidence of his presence at the time of murder.
But also Knox's calunnia convicts her. As well as the rest of the evidence against RS and AK.



Your argument was about the alleged "lack of traces" of AK and RS that you seem to invoke as "evidence" of innocence.
I think I refuted this claim with facts.

I don't look at evidence through the eyes of "experts" (mostly defence experts btw), but through my own eyes, as it should be.
There is evidence of multiple perpetrators. No "expert" was able to bring arguments that could disprove reasons for my conclusion.

No, no, no.

You haven't answered my question. You have deflected it. My question was:

"How do you stab Kercher to death and not immediately get blood over you? On your hands, arms, legs, torso, clothes? Why do we see no evidence of blood transfer on Ananda's clothes and at Raffaele's apartment. Why didn't Raffaele get blood on him?"

 

[Machiavelli]

I think we should be clear.
If the negative controls are contaminated it does not meant the test samples are. It just means they might well be. If the negative controls are uncontaminated it does not mean the test samples cannot be. It is an accepted policy that if negative controls are contaminated one will assume that results from the test samples are unreliable.

The negative controls must be treated the same way as the test samples. The negative controls from any previous runs are irrelevant. There are some excellent papers on contamination in DNA testing. Essentially even the best labs have a background rate of contamination. For Steffanoni to say that she is not aware of contamination is a Redlight. Every lab has some. If she is unaware this means the systems to detect contamination are deficient.

No paper would be accepted for publication without documenting adequate controls. Steffanoni should not submit to the court any results without including the results of negative controls. She should never have been asked for them, they should have been submitted.

They were submitted, in Oct. 2008.

But with all due respect, Stefanoni's testimony is a testimony, not an academic publication.
I'm perplexed by your stern criticism of Stefanoni, and your stating what a witness "should" do, on the sole point that she *may* have done so only *after* being asked rhater than before.
I don't think there could be place for your opinion in legal procedure.

 

[Diocletus]

They were submitted, in Oct. 2008.

But with all due respect, Stefanoni's testimony is a testimony, not an academic publication.
I'm perplexed by your stern criticism of Stefanoni, and your stating what a witness "should" do, on the sole point that she *may* have done so only *after* being asked rhater than before.
I don't think there could be place for your opinion in legal procedure.

What was submitted in October 2008 were the controls that stefanoni decided to submit. They were not a full set of the negative controls, however. We know this, because we know that the quantification for 165 was contaminated, and therefore the batch negative control should have been contaminated, too. Therefore, stefanoni didn't submit a batch negative control, but rather, a negative control that relates to only one step in the batch processing.

She's a crook.

 

[js202]

No, no, no.

You haven't answered my question. You have deflected it. My question was:

"How do you stab Kercher to death and not immediately get blood over you? On your hands, arms, legs, torso, clothes? Why do we see no evidence of blood transfer on Ananda's clothes and at Raffaele's apartment. Why didn't Raffaele get blood on him?"

Well, logically, part of the issue here is that, because Guede left footprints and handprints in blood in the murder room, it is a matter of ironclad reason to assume that - notwithstanding the fact that Guede disposed of his bloody clothes, shoes and the murder weapon - he got blood on his person. However, because there is no equivalent evidence of Knox and Sollecito in the murder room, it becomes the solemn burden of the prosecution to produce bloody clothing - or on their person or property - from them that proves an equivalent role to Guede's, and thus supports their notion of a clean-up.

This is academic, of course, because, as we know, any person with two brain cells to rub together and two feet on the ground who has done their due diligence to understand the particulars of this case understands that the case against Knox and Sollecito was preposterous nonsense.

 

[carbonjam72]

Hi Mach, hoping you'll get a chance to respond to my question below, thanks -

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
Mach, if I recall correctly, you had some theory as to why Hellman acquitted Amanda and Raf, and that it had something to do with the masons? You had expressed your belief that a senior judge somehow pulled some strings and used 'machiavellian' maneuvers to insure Judge Hellman got the case. In short, that the acquittal was in the cards before the appeal trial even started, and was the result of a corrupted trial process.

You had also expressed that Spezi had been doing the mason's bidding since the early 1970s, in his covering of the MOF murders.

Is the Marasca/Bruno final acquittal also the result of the same mason related corruption? Is the March 2015 acquittal also the work of the Masons?

Or, perhaps the 2015 acquittals are the result of political pressure?

I understand you don't agree with Marasca's final acquittal verdict, but I'm curious what you think happened to achieve this result.

I guess Mach has been a bit busy, but I am hoping Mach, that you may find time to comment on the masonic angle, or otherwise explain the brand of corruption that resulted in these recent cassation acquittals.

By the way, i particularly enjoyed your explanation of the absence of Amanda's DNA in the murder room, was because there was already so much Meredith girly DNA. How exactly does that work? Is it like DNA PAC MAN, where Meredith's DNA gobbles up Amanda's, gna-gna-gna???