• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not looking at simple English, I am looking at the penal code section quoted by Bruno-Marasca, which is actually directed at merits courts.

Are you basing this on anything except PG sites?

I've read the code and it doesn't say "for use by first and second level courts only". Where in the legal code does it prohibit the use by the ISC?
 
Amanda herself testified she bled - possibly from her earlobe - that day.

As far as Mignini was concerned, Amanda's blood mixed with Mez on that tap was the absolute clincher to her guilt.

Let us be clear the blood on the tap was Knox's. No DNA of Kercher was found mixed with this blood. Yet again you demonstrate that you do not know the facts of the case and just make up things.
 
Interesting that despite your rigorous defence of Steffanoni you do not know her background unlike I suspect most of the posters here. No she is not medical. She did an undergraduate degree in biology then was employed doing molecular biology at a post graduate level in medical research (but this is not being a medic). She then went from molecular biology to working in forensic science with as Steffanoni says in an interview no training in forensic science.

I do not know what she did, the logical thing was for her to stay in Italy and process specimens taken from victims. She may have worked in a lab locally. She is not a forensic pathologist or anthropologist so other than processing DNA samples form victims' tissues and relatives she had little expertise to offer. The situation here is very different, the source of a sample is clear, you are just matching (big) DNA samples to confirm identity either by partial matching to relatives or from known DNA of victims.

From Gill's CV - what has he achieved?

List of Major achievements:
1) I provided the first demonstration in 1985 that DNA could be extracted from degraded stain material, and that DNA ‘fingerprints’ could be obtained from such material. The results were published in Nature:
Gill, P., Jeffreys, A.J. and Werrett, D.J. (1985) Forensic application of DNA 'fingerprints'. Nature, 318, 577-579.
2) In conjunction with (1) I developed a revolutionary technique to separate sperm DNA from extraneous (female) material. Without this innovation it would have been impossible to analyse material from rape victims. These techniques are still used today.
3) I was closely involved with the first DNA case in the world. I carried out DNA analysis to confirm results provided by Alec Jeffreys. I subsequently led the team that carried out analysis on more than 1000 samples in the first example of the
4) I identified the systems (short tandem repeat analysis) that are used today in all national DNA databases throughout the world.
5) I developed the statistical methods used by the national DNA database in order to compare samples (e.g. by development of allelic ladders and associated matching algorithms).
6) I was the first to recognise the importance of STRs and to develop STR multiplexes for forensic purposes in 1993.
7) I designed the SGM plus system, and led the team that developed the first national DNA database in the world. This system comprised 6 STRs and had a discriminating power of 1 in 50 million.
8) I led the team that provided the subsequent update of the SGM system – namely the SGM plus system that provided a discriminating power of 1 in 1 billion. The systems that I developed have now been adopted world-wide.
9) I led the team that identified the remains of the Romanov family. This was the first demonstration that historical mysteries could be resolved using mitochondrial DNA and low-template autosomal DNA analysis.
10) In conjunction with (7) I demonstrated the first verified example of mitochondrial heteroplasmy that was not associated with genetic disease. This was a highly contentious discovery at the time.
11) I provided a demonstration that the highly contentious claim of Anna Anderson to be the Duchess Anastasia was false and identified her true relationship to Karl Maucher.
12) Recently, new evidence was discovered in Ekaterinburg. Two bodies were demonstrated to be the remains of Prince Alexei and a Russian princess. I was closely involved with the verification of the results. The results were published in PLOS.
13) I have developed extensive statistical theory and algorithms that are used to interpret mixtures. This theory has been adopted by several major commercial companies. Applied Biosystems have recently developed a commercial package called Genemapper-IDX that contains a mixture analysis software based on my original thinking.
14) I developed a biochemical test sufficient to analyse the DNA profile of a single cell. I concurrently developed the statistical theory and the algorithms that were required to facilitate the method.
15) I have given evidence in many major court cases, and in courts of appeal. Recently , I gave evidence at the Omagh bombing trial. In December, 2008 I gave evidence at a Frye hearing for the New York Police Department. This was to support the reporting of the first case involving low-template DNA in the US.
16) I am a regular contributor to Nature and the Nature series. I recently published an article Gill, P, When DNA goes on trial, Nature, 460, July 2009, 34-35.
17) I am currently playing a major advisory role related to the transition to update the multiplexes utilised in National DNA databases under the auspices of the ENFSI group.

Let the Battle of the Brains begin!

Identifying the remains of the Russian Imperialist family, the Romanovs, is all very fascinating, I'm sure. However, at the end of the day, Prof Gill is an academic whereas Dr Stefanoni has had to work for a living and is employed by Rome Police Forensic team. Despite her lowly post grad degree (lowly, as claim you) in medical research, she would have had to be creme de la creme to get to be the head of the department. Most importantly, Stefanoni has real hands on experience in DNA collection and analysis from her work in the field at the 2004 tsunami tragedy.
 
The two spots of blood were not mixed. The question must be asked: Why didn't the kids wipe away the blood on the faucet. They knew it was there because they reported it to F and the PP when they arrived.

There was also blood on a pillowcase of Amanda's from the ear.

Did the police find any wound that had bled? Not the bruise on her neck, btw.

This is where Dr Lalli, the pathologist, bent over backwards for the kids. He didn't bother to examine the scratch on Amanda's neck, nor the marks on Raff's chin that he was covering up with his scarf.

Why didn't the kids wipe away the blood? Too stupid. Too arrogant.
 
Let the Battle of the Brains begin!

Identifying the remains of the Russian Imperialist family, the Romanovs, is all very fascinating, I'm sure. However, at the end of the day, Prof Gill is an academic whereas Dr Stefanoni has had to work for a living and is employed by Rome Police Forensic team. Despite her lowly post grad degree (lowly, as claim you) in medical research, she would have had to be creme de la creme to get to be the head of the department. Most importantly, Stefanoni has real hands on experience in DNA collection and analysis from her work in the field at the 2004 tsunami tragedy.

There is no evidence that she has a post-graduate degree. As has been put here many times, Italy has adopted a convention that people with a first-degree can refer to themselves as: Regardless of the field of study, the title for Bachelors Graduate students is Dottore/Dottoressa (abbrev. Dott./Dott.ssa, or as Dr.), not to be confused with the title for the Ph.D.

She is no more than a technician. At least that's what any of the evidence can show. If it were not the case you'd be showing it.
 
Let the Battle of the Brains begin!

Identifying the remains of the Russian Imperialist family, the Romanovs, is all very fascinating, I'm sure. However, at the end of the day, Prof Gill is an academic whereas Dr Stefanoni has had to work for a living and is employed by Rome Police Forensic team. Despite her lowly post grad degree (lowly, as claim you) in medical research, she would have had to be creme de la creme to get to be the head of the department. Most importantly, Stefanoni has real hands on experience in DNA collection and analysis from her work in the field at the 2004 tsunami tragedy.

Reread the post she didn't get the degree she did post graduate research.

Dottore – dott. (all people holding a laurea degree). The laurea was previously the only academic degree given by Italian Universities. With the Riforma Universitaria, the Italian system has moved closer to conformity with the rest of Europe and North America. Laurea may now refer to a three-year degree (the laurea triennale) or to a laurea magistrale, which requires two additional years of study. The former confers the title dottore; holders of the latter receive the academic title dottore magistrale. Outside of Italy, however, it is inappropriate for the holder of a new laurea to use the title "Doctor."​

She isn't referred to as dottore magistrale.
 
Let the Battle of the Brains begin!

Identifying the remains of the Russian Imperialist family, the Romanovs, is all very fascinating, I'm sure. However, at the end of the day, Prof Gill is an academic whereas Dr Stefanoni has had to work for a living and is employed by Rome Police Forensic team. Despite her lowly post grad degree (lowly, as claim you) in medical research, she would have had to be creme de la creme to get to be the head of the department. Most importantly, Stefanoni has real hands on experience in DNA collection and analysis from her work in the field at the 2004 tsunami tragedy.

1) Academics work for a living
2) Gill was principle scientist at the forensic science service (FSS), this was the UK national forensic laboratory doing DNA identification for the police.
3) I have made no assertions about Steffanoni's degree being lowly. She has a first degree from University of Naples in Biology. As far as I am aware she does not have a post graduate qualification (e.g. MSc or PhD). A higher degree generally means a post graduate qualification.
4) She was not head of the department. A police brigadier was.
5) Are you saying Gill has no expertise in DNA analysis?
 
Vixen said:
The two spots of blood were not mixed. The question must be asked: Why didn't the kids wipe away the blood on the faucet. They knew it was there because they reported it to F and the PP when they arrived.

There was also blood on a pillowcase of Amanda's from the ear.

Did the police find any wound that had bled? Not the bruise on her neck, btw.

This is where Dr Lalli, the pathologist, bent over backwards for the kids. He didn't bother to examine the scratch on Amanda's neck, nor the marks on Raff's chin that he was covering up with his scarf.

Why didn't the kids wipe away the blood? Too stupid. Too arrogant.

Why do you continue to accuse PLE officials of crimes? You are suggesting they purposely misreported the facts of a crime investigation.

The mrk on Amanda's neck was thoroughly investigated. It was photographed after her arrest - and was not a scratch. Instead, the photo had to have a disclaimer on it, that the photo was enhanced so that the mark was even visible.

Why is it that for your theories to work, at one moment they next to have world-class, criminal cunning and the next they are too stupid?
 
Let us be clear the blood on the tap was Knox's. No DNA of Kercher was found mixed with this blood. Yet again you demonstrate that you do not know the facts of the case and just make up things.

THE FACTS
Drops of Meredith's blood were found in 4 places: on the light switch, the toilet seat cover, the door, and the bathmat.
Knox's blood was found on the tap of the wash basin.
A mixture of the two women's DNA (probably mixed blood) was found in three places: on the cotton bud box, the side of basin, and the bidet.
No trace of Guede's DNA was found in the small bathroom.
None of Sollecito's DNA was found, although a footprint matching his foot was on the bathmat.
The mixed traces are probably mixed blood because of the similar heights of the DNA peaks attributable to Meredith and Knox.

Massei wrote (public domain):
quote: The mixed trace specimens found in the sink and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds therefore signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith’s blood, entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed; putting her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this, and left a mark also - still with Meredith’s blood - on the light switch; she touched the cotton-bud box which was on the sink and left a mixed trace specimen of herself and of Meredith; to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet, which must have become *blood+ stained in Meredith’s room, where there were widespread and abundant traces of blood even on the floor, and where the blood was spattered over various parts of the room, and also in the bidet [303] she left a trace specimen of what appeared to be diluted blood, which contained both her own DNA and that of Meredith

In addition, Stefanoni found no less than twelve pieces of human tissue in the knife striation, only one of which was testable by amplification, yielding a near full profile of Mez, which not even the defence could dispute.

On learning of the knife being seized, Amanda was intercepted fretting about it to her mother in a prison visit. And Raff wrote in his Prison Diary that if Mez' DNA was found on the knife, it was because one day he was cooking and he accidentally pricked the back of her hand with it. He even gilds the lily by saying he immediately apologised. Unfortunately for Raff, Amanda had already told police Mez had never been to Raff's abode.
 
Last edited:
Let's have transparency. Who reviewed Gill?

I have given you the link to the FSI:G webpage, where you can address all these questions to the journal in question itself.

Perhaps you are bending over backwards for the kids to let this one go.....
 
THE FACTS
Drops of Meredith's blood were found in 4 places: on the light switch, the toilet seat cover, the door, and the bathmat.
Knox's blood was found on the tap of the wash basin.
A mixture of the two women's DNA (probably mixed blood) was found in three places: on the cotton bud box, the side of basin, and the bidet.
No trace of Guede's DNA was found in the small bathroom.
None of Sollecito's DNA was found, although a footprint matching his foot was on the bathmat.
The mixed traces are probably mixed blood because of the similar heights of the DNA peaks attributable attributable to Meredith and Knox.
No - it is not "probably mixed blood". Even Harry Rag has stopped saying there was mixed blood. It took him 6 years to quit it, but he did.

Massei wrote (public domain):
quote: The mixed trace specimens found in the sink and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds therefore signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith’s blood, entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed; putting her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this, and left a mark also - still with Meredith’s blood - on the light switch; she touched the cotton-bud box which was on the sink and left a mixed trace specimen of herself and of Meredith; to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet, which must have become *blood+ stained in Meredith’s room, where there were widespread and abundant traces of blood even on the floor, and where the blood was spattered over various parts of the room, and also in the bidet [303] she left a trace specimen of what appeared to be diluted blood, which contained both her own DNA and that of Meredith
This is exactly Gill's criticism of this fraudulent analysis. It is mistaken to assume DNA has a time-stamp on it - a concept Massei himself used to discount the presumed semen stain on the pillow. One also cannot determine "use" from the placement of DNA.
 
No - it is not "probably mixed blood". Even Harry Rag has stopped saying there was mixed blood. It took him 6 years to quit it, but he did.


This is exactly Gill's criticism of this fraudulent analysis. It is mistaken to assume DNA has a time-stamp on it - a concept Massei himself used to discount the presumed semen stain on the pillow. One also cannot determine "use" from the placement of DNA.

It does have a time stamp as Amanda herself confirmed to Mignini the bathroom had been cleaned the day before.
 
This is where Dr Lalli, the pathologist, bent over backwards for the kids. He didn't bother to examine the scratch on Amanda's neck, nor the marks on Raff's chin that he was covering up with his scarf.

Why didn't the kids wipe away the blood? Too stupid. Too arrogant.

They meticulously cleaned all the shoe prints from Amanda but the one on the sheet under Meredith, they searched the room with Amanda's light for ???, they disposed of all clothing, shoes and cleaning rags, staged a break in, turned off their phones, etc. etc. but forgot to remove the blood from the faucet?

Mignini called her, what was it, very astute? Can you explain how the arrogant angle would have worked? At what point in the planning, murder, and clean up did they become arrogant?
 
It does have a time stamp as Amanda herself confirmed to Mignini the bathroom had been cleaned the day before.

And why would she say that? In 10 seconds she could have cleaned the faucet.
 
The pair were exonerated. You are again oblivious to law and flounder under the erroneous misconception that the Italian Supreme Court of Appeal can "drop the charges".

I assume you are a lawyer, within a descendent of a Dutch system.

Why do you use the word "exonerated" with regard to this case?
 
It does have a time stamp as Amanda herself confirmed to Mignini the bathroom had been cleaned the day before.

So then, you are saying that Massei SHOULD have made reference to some implied DNA time-stamp for the stain on the pillow?

Or are you criticizing the victim for not laundering pillow cases with stains and shoe prints on them?
 
1) Academics work for a living
2) Gill was principle scientist at the forensic science service (FSS), this was the UK national forensic laboratory doing DNA identification for the police.
3) I have made no assertions about Steffanoni's degree being lowly. She has a first degree from University of Naples in Biology. As far as I am aware she does not have a post graduate qualification (e.g. MSc or PhD). A higher degree generally means a post graduate qualification.
4) She was not head of the department. A police brigadier was.
5) Are you saying Gill has no expertise in DNA analysis?

Research fellows get grants; they are not usually salaried.

Stefanoni was the head of the forensic team investigating the Kercher murder.

There is no doubt about the calibre of Dr Gill's work and of his preeminence in his field. It is such a shame that a man of distinction should crown his distinguished career by getting down dirty in the gutter with the Friends of Amanda like a two-bit whore. It is a pity academics don't earn enough from pontificating, but have to trade their wares like a street prostitute at passing rich defense clients, for a quick two bob behind a dark alley.
 
They meticulously cleaned all the shoe prints from Amanda but the one on the sheet under Meredith, they searched the room with Amanda's light for ???, they disposed of all clothing, shoes and cleaning rags, staged a break in, turned off their phones, etc. etc. but forgot to remove the blood from the faucet?

Mignini called her, what was it, very astute? Can you explain how the arrogant angle would have worked? At what point in the planning, murder, and clean up did they become arrogant?

Did Amanda find the earring that seems to have come awry from her ear lobe during the contretemps?

Job done by the lamp.

Whoops! Forgot to remove it before locking the door from the inside. Cynics might claim the only reason Raff tried to break down the door was to retrieve it.
 
I assume you are a lawyer, within a descendent of a Dutch system.

Why do you use the word "exonerated" with regard to this case?

O.J. was found not guilty in a system that does not have a two level acquittal. There was no higher level of not guilty he could have received.

Was he exonerated? Why do you refuse to answer? The only reason I can think of is that you don't believe he was exonerated, as the civil suit showed, and you can't bring yourself to admit a para two acquittal isn't an exoneration.

IIRC Mike took a legal class in 1985. What is a "descendent of a Dutch system"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom