Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Mr Fied]

Yes, the disingenuity is pretty shocking. Rudy claims he was there invited.

Yes, he claims.

All the judges upheld he was let in by Amanda

.

LIE.

If Rudy was invited, of course his DNA is there.

IF

What is strange is Amanda aand Raff denying they were there,

Not strange, they were not there.

yet scientific evidence proves she was bleeding the same time as Mez

LIE

( and how strange to make up a story, "Oh it must have been my pierced ear")

and Raff's footprints in a substance that reacts to luminol

LIE

is most queer, not to mention his DNA on Mez' bra where it was ripped off her.
Shurely shome mishtake, M'Lud.

 

[Planigale]

Once again, if you could put the amount of DNA found on the clasp and the knife in terms of a grain of sugar or salt, I think that would demonstrate more clearly how easy secondary and tertiary transfer is.

It baffles that the PGP can't understand why LCN DNA needs such tight protocols or that people give false confessions and other statements because of the interrogation techniques used.

I am working on this it is not as easy as a quick comment there is an issue that what is really important is the number of molecules of DNA rather than the simple mass, I think I have a description to help but please be patient.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen and Machiavelli constantly accuse C&V of being incompetent but slavishly defend corrupt police who displayed staggering levels of incompetence. Yet another example of hypocrisy from the PGP.

You haven't produced an iota of evidence "the police were corrupt". Of course, there will be the odd one or two bad apples in any police force, but to say the entire force was bent - including the Flying Squad from Rome - is really reaching. All the PIP can do is rant about Mignini (a prosecutor, not a policeman) and Stefanoni.

 

[Vixen]

While I am quite certain this has been explained to you multiple times:

There was a much larger amount and higher quality evidence against Rudy that was far less questionable. The evidence was collected immediately. Contrast this with evidence that was collected 46 days after the fact that was used to "get" Amanda and Raffaele. Evidence that was moved and kicked around in the mean time and had DNA from multiple other unknown people on the sample, proving contamination. There was Rudy's shoeprint in blood. His DNA was everywhere. The DNA was at standard quantities and did not require LCN analysis. By itself, Rudy's DNA at the crime scene is obviously incriminating while Amanda's wasn't because Amanda lived in the house and would be there regardless if a murder even occurred or not. Similarly, Raffaele had been to the house. Rudy's DNA had no business being there unless he was involved in a crime. There was a break in. Using the same method Rudy used to break into a previous building to commit a burglary. Rudy's DNA was inside Meredith's vagina. Rudy admitted to being there before even being spoken to by police. He fled the country. Amanda and Raf have an alibi based on known possible ranges for TOD as inferred from food digestion. We know they were at Raffaele's place when the murder occurred. Contrast this with the fact that we know Rudy was at the house because he admitted to being at the house. And his DNA (non-LCN DNA, collected in a far more reliable fashion) was everywhere in a house he did not live in, and had never been to other than the night in question.

This is all completely obvious if you spend 5 minutes to think about it, but there you go.

You seem to have scant grasp of the facts. There were only about four DNA samples of Rudy and none found at all in Filomena's room, so using your logic, he must be innocent as there's no proof he was there as a burglar, which is your submission, which on those grounds has to be dismissed.

In addition, Rudy's DNA was collected the same time as Raff's, under the same conditions, same forensic teams.

The stuff about 46 days is a classic PIP red herring. If OJ Simpson can have a knife buried on a construction site and retrieved by a policeman over a time range of TWENTY YEARS and the LAPD are confident it is fit for DNA analysis, then we can test anything for DNA after six weeks.

Raff and Amanda didn't flee because they thought they could cover the crime up, and which they proceeded to try to do, by staging a burglary and rape scene, being careful to point Napoleoni to anything that related to Rudy's presence at the scene. Amanda had experience in staging a burglary and Raff says in his book he knew of a famous case wherein a guy who topped his wife, staged a burglary to put police off the scent. Raff boasts in his book, he had experience in pulling wool over cops' eyes when three of them were caught in possession of drugs and he craftily calculated how they could get away with it and fool the police.

Amanda and Raff both showed criminal tendencies before the crime.

 

[Vixen]

His DNA isn't needed as you have been told a hundred times. If the only evidence against Rudi was what the bent prosecution witnesses claim was found on the bra clasp of Raf I'd be on his defense team. Of course, assuming he hadn't admitted being there when she was murdered.

All of technician Stefi's LCN work should be thrown out as she and her lab were not certified and the collection and transport weren't up to snuff.



You realize you are claiming "Italy's top forensic experts" have only 3 year degrees.

The quality of your degree might be relevant at entry level, but after that, it is down to merit. Stefanoni was clearly held in high enough regard and of proven competency to be put in charge of DNA analysis of a major murder case.

I've met plenty of incredibly talented people in the workplace with basic level entry or none at all, who have risen the ranks by shining at their job.

There is zippo evidence the DNA labs were in anyway incompetent. Police are every day people, no crime scene is a sterile one and I am confident they gave of their best. Look how quickly Profazio solved the Olssen case recently.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, he claims.

.

LIE.



IF



Not strange, they were not there.



LIE

( and how strange to make up a story, "Oh it must have been my pierced ear")



LIE

Scene: Court Room

JUDGE: Counsel for the defence. Who do I have before me?

MR FIED (for it is he, rises to his feet): Mr Fied, M'Lud. <fx clears throat>

My submission M'Lud, is the prosecution claim my client did it, is a LIE!

<fx sits.>

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, the disingenuity is pretty shocking. Rudy claims he was there invited. All the judges upheld he was let in by Amanda. If Rudy was invited, of course his DNA is there. What is strange is Amanda aand Raff denying they were there, yet scientific evidence proves she was bleeding the same time as Mez ( and how strange to make up a story, "Oh it must have been my pierced ear") and Raff's footprints in a substance that reacts to luminol is most queer, not to mention his DNA on Mez' bra where it was ripped off her.

Shurely shome mishtake, M'Lud.

All the judges?

 

[Antony]

MR FIED (for it is he, rises to his feet): Mr Fied, M'Lud. <fx clears throat>

My submission M'Lud, is the prosecution claim my client did it, is a LIE!

<fx sits.>

Yes, and this is the point. All you have are lies, because you cannot substantiate anything you say.

The defence does not have to prove anything. When the prosecution has no proof, the defence need do no more than repudiate the accusations.

 

[Vixen]

All the judges?

Yes, Bill. "All" is an absolute.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, and this is the point. All you have are lies, because you cannot substantiate anything you say.

The defence does not have to prove anything. When the prosecution has no proof, the defence need do no more than repudiate the accusations.

Nobody's asking you to prove it. However, in the face of hard scientific evidence*, you'd better have an eloquent repudiation.

*DNA, luminol, footprint analysis, blood spatter analysis, telephone records, computer records, window forensics, etc., etc.

 

[Mr Fied]

All the judges?

It would be nice to know what time Amanda let him in Bill.

After all, "ALL" these judges must have concrete evidence to be so sure.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, Bill. "All" is an absolute.

Hellmann? Zanetti? Oh all right, there's that pesky conspiracy...... you win.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

You seem to have scant grasp of the facts.

For Vixen, "scant grasp of facts" means that I have actual knowledge of how the evidence was collected and the methods used to test them. Contrast this to Vixen's "grasp of the facts" which involve picking up lies and factoids from the pro-guilt community and spreading them on the internet far and wide because they are incapable of admitting when they don't understand something or admit when they are wrong.

There were only about four DNA samples of Rudy and none found at all in Filomena's room, so using your logic, he must be innocent as there's no proof he was there as a burglar, which is your submission, which on those grounds has to be dismissed.

I mean, this is all completely crazy, but we are used to it by now.

The absolute number of DNA samples "found" is irrelevant unless it is put into context of how many total samples were collected and where they were collected. This is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Four DNA samples compared to zero for Amanda and zero for Raffaele (on the initial day of collection. One 46 days later from obvious contamination.) Four from someone who had no business being there. Four from someone who broke through a window. Combined with his shoeprint in blood. His handprint in blood. His DNA on her purse. His DNA in the murdered girl's vagina. You have to be a complete lunatic to not see the difference in evidence here between Rudy and Amanda/Raffaele.

In addition, Rudy's DNA was collected the same time as Raff's, under the same conditions, same forensic teams.

There is a completely 100% dishonest lie. You have to know this is a blatant lie by now. You know enough about the case, there is no way this is a mistake. The samples implicating Rudy were collected immediately by investigators on the initial forensic analysis of the room. The bra clasp (the only "sample" containing Raf's DNA) was collected 46 days later and was kicked around/moved and had multiple unknown other DNA contributors. It is astounding that you think you can get away with this level of dishonesty.

The stuff about 46 days is a classic PIP red herring. If OJ Simpson can have a knife buried on a construction site and retrieved by a policeman over a time range of TWENTY YEARS and the LAPD are confident it is fit for DNA analysis, then we can test anything for DNA after six weeks.

It does take a reasonable level of intelligence and analytical abilities to see the difference between the bra clasp and your example, I must admit.

In your example, the knife was BURIED. In other words, no one else moved it nor came into contact with it in the intervening 20 years. Contrast this with the bra clasp, which was lying around in open space for 46 days, was kicked around and moved (video evidence that it was moved from where it was initially seen) and had THREE other contributors to the mixed DNA profile.

Yes, if the bra clasp was buried maybe it would be usable as evidence. But it wasn't and I am not surprised that you don't see why having a sample kicked around and moved across a crime scene by incompetent investigators causes problems with its reliability for DNA analysis.

Raff and Amanda didn't flee because they thought they could cover the crime up, and which they proceeded to try to do, by staging a burglary and rape scene, being careful to point Napoleoni to anything that related to Rudy's presence at the scene. Amanda had experience in staging a burglary and Raff says in his book he knew of a famous case wherein a guy who topped his wife, staged a burglary to put police off the scent. Raff boasts in his book, he had experience in pulling wool over cops' eyes when three of them were caught in possession of drugs and he craftily calculated how they could get away with it and fool the police.

There is no point addressing this. It is entirely fabricated in your head and there is zero evidence for anything you just make up out of thin air. It is like having a discussion with a cartoon character.

Amanda and Raff both showed criminal tendencies before the crime.

Another blatant lie, but we all know your tendencies by now.

 

[Grinder]

I am working on this it is not as easy as a quick comment there is an issue that what is really important is the number of molecules of DNA rather than the simple mass, I think I have a description to help but please be patient.

Thank you in advance for the effort.

 

[Planigale]

I am working on this it is not as easy as a quick comment there is an issue that what is really important is the number of molecules of DNA rather than the simple mass, I think I have a description to help but please be patient.

If one considers the knife and the Luminol positive foot prints. Taking upper limits of sensitivity from 'Luminescence. 2006 Jul-Aug;21(4):214-20' We get 1,000,000 dilution for TMB and 1:5,000,000 for Luminol.

Assuming one drop of blood as about 100 microlitres (a biggish drop). So to get a dilution not detectable by TMB but detectable by Luminol one would be looking at a dilution of more than 1,000,000. What does this mean? It is one drop of blood diluted in 100 litres of water say about 20 gallons. A reasonably full bath is about 100 litres so imagine one drop of blood in a bath full of water. An average shower is less than half that, so a single drop of blood (from menstruation, or a bleeding ear or piles, or popping one spots would result in Luminol detectable blood in the water on ones body from a shower or a bath.

What about DNA? A drop of 100 micro litres would contain about 1,000,000 white cells. So one diluted to 100 litres this would 10,000 white cells / litre, or 10 per millilitre, or one white cell per 100 micro litres. When testing for DNA a 10 micro litre sample is usually taken so the odds would be that any 10 micro litre sample would not contain any DNA. Assuming a definition of 100 picograms for LCN DNA. And that the mass of DNA in a human cell is about 2 picograms. More than 50 cells would be needed to get a reliable DNA test. So more than 50ml (a shot of whisky) would need to be concentrated to get a reliable DNA test.

This is why one would expect a positive test for haemoglobin before a positive DNA test on a blood stain. It also give an idea of how little blood would be needed to give a positive Luminol but negative TMB test on a footprint. Certainly not compatible with someone walking around with bloody feet. One drop of blood in a bath is not visible blood staining.

So what dilution of blood would give a borderline detectable DNA test. We need about 100pg in 10 mcl. That is 50 cells in 10 mcl. or 5 cells per micro litre. There are 5 - 10,000 white cells (containing DNA) per micro litre so the dilution limit is about 1:1,000. Or given a drop of blood being about 100 micro litres, this is one drop of blood in 100 milli litres, (the size of a small travel bottle one can carry in hand luggage).

 

[Bill Williams]

It would be nice to know what time Amanda let him in Bill.

After all, "ALL" these judges must have concrete evidence to be so sure.

Acc. to Rudy, Meredith let him in. For Amanda to have let him in, she must have sprinted over there immediately after being seen by Raffaele's friend at his place.

Then again, everyone now believes Rudy these days, it's amazing that Vixen wouldn't trust poor, poor Rudy.

 

[Antony]

Nobody's asking you to prove it. However, in the face of hard scientific evidence*, you'd better have an eloquent repudiation.

*DNA, luminol, footprint analysis, blood spatter analysis, telephone records, computer records, window forensics, etc., etc.

Your brazenness knows no bounds. Your "hard scientific evidence" is fictitious.

 

[Grinder]

You haven't produced an iota of evidence "the police were corrupt". Of course, there will be the odd one or two bad apples in any police force, but to say the entire force was bent - including the Flying Squad from Rome - is really reaching. All the PIP can do is rant about Mignini (a prosecutor, not a policeman) and Stefanoni.

Who was in charge of the Flying Squad from Rome?

Here's a hint - this Google produces I hit - ["flying squad from rome" "amanda knox"]

 

[Grinder]

In addition, Rudy's DNA was collected the same time as Raff's, under the same conditions, same forensic teams.

Was Meredith's body still in the cottage 46 days after the murder?

 

[Grinder]

The quality of your degree might be relevant at entry level, but after that, it is down to merit. Stefanoni was clearly held in high enough regard and of proven competency to be put in charge of DNA analysis of a major murder case.

I've met plenty of incredibly talented people in the workplace with basic level entry or none at all, who have risen the ranks by shining at their job.

There is zippo evidence the DNA labs were in anyway incompetent. Police are every day people, no crime scene is a sterile one and I am confident they gave of their best. Look how quickly Profazio solved the Olssen case recently.

DNA is a highly complex field. Stefi didn't have adequate training for regular DNA much less LCN. Her team dragged swabs on the sink instead of dabbing thereby mixing all DNA on the sink together,

How did Profazio solve the case?