Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Problem is here that the proof is essential to the efficacy of the answer. You cannot know you have a correct answer until you've seen the proof.

What I want to know is why Stefanoni's own personal attitude to the raw data in this case is not in itself a huge red flag for those who seem to believe her work was sound.

And that's even before we look at such other evidence, which is available, that proves it was not.

As the lady pointed out, it is not the done thing.

 

[Vixen]

If anyone is a disgusting character it is you, Machiavelli.

Oh, and btw, according to the Italian Supreme Court they are not murderers. Just more evidence you and the truth are like oil and vinegar.

"TruthCalls" would appear to be a misnomer if you consider Mach pointing out the facts makes Mach "a disgusting character"?

 

[Desert Fox]

Complete rubbish! You're presupposing the "real" murderers were never going to be found.

No, we have the real murder. . . .Let me show you a picture

 

[Vixen]

Here are a few questions I would like to ask Machiavelli

1) You and Vixen have constantly accused C&V of being incompetent buffoons totally lacking in expertise in DNA. To support this claim, you say C&V had a history of incompetence. If this was the case, why did the prosecution not make an issue of this? The prosecution never questioned the expertise of C&V during the Hellman trial, the Galati appeal and during the Nencini trial. In addition, the Chieffi report never made an issue of lack of expertise by C&V. If C&V had such a history of major blunders, why did the prosecution not use this? The prosecution have had their work criticised by totally clueless buffoons but make no claim they are incompetent. It is clear that you Machiavelli work for the prosecution. Why did you not tell your bosses that they should make an issue of the lack of expertise of C&V?

2) If C&V were incompetent buffoons, rebutting their report should present no problems. Can you explain if C&V were were incompetent that neither you or the prosecution have been able to write a rebuttal of their report. I have a challenge for your Machiavelli. Can you write detailed rebuttal of the C&V report? If you are unable to do this, can you explain why if C&V are so incompetent?

3) If the DNA results on the knife are valid, how do you explain the massive level of corruption and misconduct surrounding the DNA? Why did the prosecution have to resort to suppressing evidence, lying, being evasive in court and using false documents which is documented on Amandaknoxcase.com? Why did the prosecution have to resort to these tactics if they had a slam dunk case?

4) Stefanoni said she could not remember how much DNA was on the knife when questioned. Can you tell how much DNA was on the knife?

5) If the DNA on the knife was valid, why does section in the the fake wiki themurderofmeredithkercher.com which deals with the knife has to resort to using numerous falsehoods?

6) If the DNA on the knife was valid, responding to the criticisms made of Stefanoni's work should present no problems. Some time ago when you posted on the Injustice in Perugia Forum, I asked you to rebutt the articles of Mark Waterbury criticising Stefanoni's work which you were unable to do so. If Stefanoni's work was valid, why is that PGP can not respond to people who criticise Stefanoni's work?

Look you, boyo, yakkyda; the prosecution did not call V&C incompetent buffoons as court protocol does not encourage pyrotechnics, but mutual respect. It is for the judge/s to determine the witness' credibility. O do do do do.

 

[Vixen]

Good grief! So this is the level of knowledge you display before you pile in with your ill-informed opinion. It puts your comments on the Kercher case into perspective.


Off-topic still, but if you'd even followed the news reports at the time, you'd be better informed than this. You're not challenging the fact that Megrahi had terminal cancer?


You obviously know very little about the case. It's also obvious that you have a knee-jerk response to assume guilt in any disputed case, without bothering with anything so vulgar as the facts.

No, that's your assumption. ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.

 

[Vixen]

When someone destroys evidence in the US we do something about it. I think the Italians should suspend Steffi from the next four murder cases.

Really? Some guy languished in prison for 30 years cos the cops couldn't be arsed to examine the purported gun.

 

[Vixen]

And Mignini should lose his first round draft pick of glamorous female (but entirely unqualified for the role and improperly drafted in from hundreds of miles away over the heads of local choices) forensic crime scene examiners. That really would be "Deflategate" for Mignini

Are you insinuating Mignini uses the casting couch?

 

[Kauffer]

As the lady pointed out, it is not the done thing.

The forensic literature does not agree with the view that producing raw data routinely is "not the done thing".

Can you challenge yourself to attempt to find one citation in support of the view you hold? If you cannot, then you are deliberately hiding from the truth. If you can, then you will see that I am right and realise that your entire position is without merit.

Berti, the Carabinieri scientist who testified in this case does not agree with you.

 

[Vixen]

The sad part is you are 100% ignorant of the characters of Amanda Knox independent from the case and you know it. Your opinion of them is entirely dependent on your misguided belief in their guilt. That is the part that is disgusting. Both of these young people are upstanding quality human beings. Both kind, polite and respectful of others. Neither has EVER demonstrated anything to the contrary.

Their true characters have been exposed through this entire ordeal. Yet you have your eyes shut and your mind made up. Sad.

OMG You really are trying to talk your way into it.

 

[Vixen]

The issue about how Amanda's lamp got into Meredith's room is used similarly as bleach receipts to imply a connection that does not exist. Amanda did not move her desk lamp into Meredith's room. Meredith might up have borrowed it or the police might have moved it to illuminate under Meredith's bed. Mignini may well know that, yet he questioned Amanda about it on the stand to make her look involved in the crime while Mignini possibly knew that police introduced it into Meredith's room.

Indeed, if the police introduced the lamp into Meredith's room Mignini must know it. There would be no plausible excuse for him not to know it.

You still haven't answered my question why Amanda did not report the lamp missing.

 

[Kauffer]

You still haven't answered my question why Amanda did not report the lamp missing.

Because she did not notice it missing.

Moreover, the lamp is irrelevant to the case since there is no evidence of any cleaning in Kercher's room.

 

[Vixen]

Because she did not notice it missing.

Moreover, the lamp is irrelevant to the case since there is no evidence of any cleaning in Kercher's room.

What? They've just reported a burglary and Amanda hasn't spotted her dirty great lamp was gone? In court, she was squirming and wriggling about admitting the lamp on the floor of Mez' room was hers. Conveniently wiped clean of all fingerprints.

 

[Bill Williams]

Look you, boyo, yakkyda; the prosecution did not call V&C incompetent buffoons as court protocol does not encourage pyrotechnics, but mutual respect. It is for the judge/s to determine the witness' credibility. O do do do do.

In Italy? You obviously have not read any of the court transcripts. LOL!

 

[Bill Williams]

What? They've just reported a burglary and Amanda hasn't spotted her dirty great lamp was gone? In court, she was squirming and wriggling about admitting the lamp on the floor of Mez' room was hers. Conveniently wiped clean of all fingerprints.

Is this your case? What was he lamp presumably used for?

 

[Ken Dine]

It ought to be abundantly clear to any jurist with a degree of scientific understanding that LCN DNA typing is - by its very nature - a tool that should be used only with extreme caution.

It should be abundantly clear because the very rationale for low-template analysis - i.e. the attempt to generate DNA profiles where only minuscule amounts of DNA are available - presents self-evident problems. The four most important and relevant problems are these:

1) Contamination at every level of the process (collection of evidence, storage and transportation of evidence, testing of evidence). At these tiny levels, even airborne DNA contamination is a potential problem. And certainly tertiary touch contamination and machine contamination are possibilities.

2) Amplification of noise which is subsequently misinterpreted.

3) Misinterpretation of EDFs and electropherograms - including improper, subjective, suspect-centric interpretations.

4) Lack of repeatability of amplifications and testing, owing to the tiny amounts. This causes very real problems relating to confirmation and validation of the test outputs and their interpretations.

For these reasons (and others), the very minimum requirement is that any low-template evidence is collected, transported and stored in ultra-sterile conditions, and that it is then tested under extremely stringent protocols (including positive pressure hoods to exclude airborne lab contamination, and incredibly thorough (including UV) cleaning of all surfaces, machines and tools in the lab). Even then, the inherent imprecision attached to low-template work may still mean that it still does not qualify as probative evidence in a criminal justice environment.

Of course, it goes without saying that not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni and her band of goons fell at pretty much every single hurdle when it came to low-template work in the Kercher case. Every sane, non-partisan DNA expert in the World would readily state that the LCN evidence in the Kercher case was totally worthless and unreliable.

I would add to your top four:

#5 – to be probative, the need to know exactly which type of body cells left the DNA traces (skin, blood, sperm, etc?) being analyzed with ultra sensitive LCN methods.

#6 – mixed DNA samples, which even when using regular amounts of DNA can make the analysis more difficult (and more subjective) to interpret correctly.

DNA labs need regular testing, and to be meaningful, they shouldn't know when they're being fed DNA from a known source(s) rather than from an actual case, and in that way they'll be more diligent every time they analyze DNA since it could be a performance test they'll be scored on.

I didn't make that up –– currently in America they are discussing doing exactly that to give more assurance for DNA evidence in court. Seems like a good idea to me.

 

[Strozzi]

You still haven't answered my question why Amanda did not report the lamp missing.

I am not aware the lamp was missing from Amanda's room when she returned to shower and change that morning or when she returned after noon with Raffaele? Do you have evidence it was missing?

 

[Ken Dine]

I'm thinking DNA should only be used for investigative purposes, unless it can be shown to appear in an incriminating location, like inside a body.

It seems to me like the idea of using DNA as "proof of a crime" is inherently a logical fallacy.

I feel it should depend upon the type and circumstances of the DNA evidence, such as LCN-DNA versus regular DNA, and type of body cells being analyzed.

E.g., when investigating a knife murder if they find blood from a 2nd individual at the scene, then that 2nd person is either the perp or a 2nd victim who may have run away, and if DNA leads to that 2nd person and they can't adequately explain why their blood was left at the scene, I feel that DNA evidence can appropriately be used at trial against them.

However, if the DNA is exfoliated skin cells from a person who has had a legitimate reason for being at the crime scene in the past, then there isn't much probative value in that. Whereas, even skin cells (touch or exfoliated) found at the scene belonging to someone who never legitimately visited the scene, then that should be used, but with caution since there still could be an innocent reason how their DNA came to be found there.

 

[RWVBWL]

Is this your case? What was the lamp presumably used for?

Come on, Billy,
You just know the lamp was used to remove all traces of Foxy Knoxy's DNA from Meredith's genitalia.

And to remove all of Foxy's blonde hair.
(Ooops! They forgot 1 blonde hair easily seen, found+ photographed in Meredith's grasp,
and another blonde hair found on her Brazilian-ed *******...)

And it was used to remove the traces of [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s DNA
+/or bloody fingerprints from the button on Meredith's blue jeans,
ya know, the 1's that were from her old English boyfriend Patrick Cronin.
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/meredith-kerchers-ex-love-forever-haunted-1673717)

Too bad they did not bring AK's lamp into her + Mez's bathroom,
they mighta seen, (as it was in plain sight!) and then thrown out that bathmat
with [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s bloody footprint on it!

Oh well,
The Pranksters,
err I mean The Stoners
can't get everything right,
right?

Cool guy, that [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE],
for I betcha many guilt-ards might believe that it was he that un-buttoned Meredith's pants,
so Rudy could rape Meredith. What a bro...

Hang on a sec!
Was the lamp also used to remove any traces of Foxy Knoxy from Meredith's body too?
To maybe wipe off any of her saliva or any of her invisible DNA from her sweaty fingertips?
(Ain't prespiration what Vixen recently told me that might cause DNA to be left behind?)
I wonder if they wiped Meredith down with [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s bleach?

Did they use the lamp too when they used the mop and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s bleach
to clean up their bloody footprints or shoeprints?
Enquirin' minds wanna know!

What a clean up job,
they left "poor Rudy's" shoeprints
while removing their own!

Golly,
maybe the 2 just wanted stage a crime scene,
to make their prank look like a rape + murder.

So hours after the murder,
they posed Meredith's corpse on her pillow,
+ raised up her t-shirt and spread her legs so that a probable seminal fluid stain was found down near her genitalia,
(maybe Dr. Stefanoni will not be able to date it + think it's from Giacomo!?!) before they covered her with her own duvet that she herself apparently bought and then also decided to leave a movie ticket stub on top of it from Cinegatti, dated a coupla days earlier for 8:30pm on the night of the 29th because, maybe because Meredith did not go to the movie with Amanda, even though Mez had lunch the very next day and a few hours later went out and drank some wine with The Luciferina and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE] that same night at La Tana?

Hmmmm.
your question has left me pondering
maybe Vixen will chime in soon with some more highly intelligent mensa-ish thoughts
so as to try + convince me of Foxy Knoxy's + [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]'s guilt,
as they cleaned up all night to remove all traces of their participation in the brutal murder of Foxy Knox's room mate, + pointed the finger at "poor Rudy" as he danced the night away at the club...
RW



PS - I'm kinda under the influence right now, of alcohol and THC.
I wonder if the guilt-ards will believe this bullcrap, err story
when I tell the local newspaper reporter who lives next door to the Conad store
all of this, what I saw, in 5 months time and then,
after that newspaper reporter keeps hasslin' me + makes me go incognito on TV,
I also tell the cops this too?

Heck, heroin,
err, alcohol and THC ain't gonna make me forget none of this stuff,
no, no no...



ETA:
I gotta go,
The Moon is full in Los Angeles right now,
and 1 of the summer concerts is on at Santa Monica Pier!

Maybe I'll play whack-a-mole at the Arcade later!
Like Brenda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ovdvSmAFAw
Late!

 

[acbytesla]

OMG You really are trying to talk your way into it.

Who needs to talk myself into it? Both of these people have many friends and supporters. Ask Amanda'a friends and schoolmates at Seattle Prep Academy and the University of Washington. If Amanda is such a bad person, why isn't there reports from people here in Seattle that know her saying bad things?

Why did her friend Madison Paxton put her life on hold and move to Italy to visit her in prison every day? Why did Superior Court Judge Heavey support Amanda? Two reasons, the first is that his daughter went to school with Amanda and told him that Amanda was the nicest person she knew. And two, because he evaluated the evidence. This is a man who has sentenced more than a few criminals.

My brother was a criminal. He went to prison for assault. He's my brother but he's a creep. I know how to spot the difference.

The evidence tells me they are innocent. Their behavior tells me they are good people.

 

[zotz]

You still haven't answered my question why Amanda did not report the lamp missing.

This is such an obvious nitpick. She was looking for missing valuables, not a 5 euro lamp. This one is on the same level as "Where is the missing coat?"
or "Why would two lovers turn their phones off before going to bed?" Duh??
or "Why would Amanda take a shower in the morning if she took one at night?"

They all indicate a kind of tunnel vision confirmation bias that when combined with the psychological inability to admit error motivates the Migninis, Machs, Vixens, Comodis, and the rest of them. So Mach and others like PQ convince themselves that they are doing this "for Meredith" or "for the Kerchers". If they were ever to admit to themselves that they were wrong then they also would have to admit that they played a role in harming the Kerchers and that they helped Meredith's real killer, Rudy. By supporting his fake story they played a role in reducing his sentence which, BTW, means he will be released when he is still a young man thus increasing the chances that he will commit more violent crimes. And these guilters will be partly responsible for that.

My conscience would be bothering me if I were one of them.