Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Why, then, do you need to advance known untruths to make your case about this case?

Why do you need o say, "The had sex next to the corpse", why do you have to publish photos of windows which show bars over the panes, and then claim there are no bars over the panes? Why can you not name one peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni?

None of that is about your beliefs. All of it is about the way you (mis)represent evidence. See Welshman's post. He calls all those things you advance, "lies". Are they? Or are you just misguidedly mistaken?

I have the feeling you'll address none of this, but think of uttering yet another ad homenim.

Massei and Nencini - you know, the merits court, i.e., the full trial proper - upheld the pair spent the evening and the night at the cottage. Raff wasn't sure if they had sex, but Amanda is sure they did. She said it happened after the pipes dismantled themselves and Raff said, oh, let's roll a joint, and then they had sex.

As Amanda's room was next door to Mez' that means Mez was likely lying dead nearby.

What kind of unsavoury character indulges in that type of behaviour?

 

[Vixen]

This is what Welshman is talking about.

Stefanoni did not make multiple amplifications once she got a result. Her previous runs produced "no result".

So if you want to press this, that's what she should have reported to the court - no result.

It was a successful run she did not do multiple amplifications on.

This is why your posts are seen as "flawed" to say the least.

Not your strong point? Stefanoni amplified the DNA she extracted from the cell to get a result.

Don't make me have to use bold.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is what Welshman is talking about.

Stefanoni did not make multiple amplifications once she got a result. Her previous runs produced "no result".

So if you want to press this, that's what she should have reported to the court - no result.

It was a successful run she did not do multiple amplifications on.

This is why your posts are seen as "flawed" to say the least.

Not your strong point? Stefanoni amplified the DNA she extracted from the cell to get a result.

Don't make me have to use bold.

As it relates to 36b, no one really knows. Stefanoni simply suppressed the controls.

I have a feeling that the following page will not impress you. It is supplied so that others may see this case for what it was - in relation to the forensic-DNA testing.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/

In short:

- the prosecution suppressed 100 of 173 genetic profiles in the first month of processing

- the prosecution failed to disclose to the court which incarcerated Sollecito for two years (prior to trial) that the DNA analysis excluded him from the crime

- 90% of the documentation relating to the kitchen knife was never revealed

- there have been no DNA amplification records ever released, and amplification is the most likely source of contamination​

Critically, the way any lab assigns serial numbers and plate numbers to each amplification. There are Gap Profiles which were never disclosed, such that, "it was not feasible prior to trial to determine that the Gap Profiles related to the Kercher case or to identify the samples that corresponded to the Gap Profiles."

The following is what should have been done, which was not:

Once the “successful” quantifications are identified, the process for identifying the Gap Profiles is straightforward. All of the successfully-quantified samples were submitted to profiling, and during the amplification process, were assigned an ID Number in the same order in which they were quantified. Therefore, a list of all of the successfully-quantified samples, arranged in the order in which they were quantified, serves as an index to the ID Numbers. This index of ID Numbers discloses the identity of the Gap Profiles that are not mentioned in the Report and were unknown to the defendants.​

And finally....

......the actual amplification records and electropherograms that relate to the Gap Profiles were never disclosed, and so they cannot be examined. The indexing process described above, though, shows that the Gap Profiles consist generally of a mixture of negative control samples (“Controls”) and evidentiary samples, many of which are from Low Copy Number (LCN) samples. While the results of these Gap Profiles remain unknown, we can assume that they are not helpful to the prosecution, at best reflecting mixed/uninterpretable results or unexpected/unknown identifications, and at worst showing laboratory contamination or even exculpatory evidentiary results.​

Read through the specifics on each batch run and you'll get the idea.

 

[Bill Williams]

This link is posted for two reasons.

One: perhaps someone like Vixen could go through it and point to any mistakes.

Two: so that others might understand the fraud Stefanoni tried to pull over the court. It almost worked!

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

Pay attention to July 18, 2009, when Bongiorno realizes that co-Prosecutor Comodi is making reference to DNA data which the defence has never heard of!!!

 

[Stacyhs]

The only points of law Chiefi sent back was the knife issue and the cross-examination of a couple of witnesses. Do read it, Stacy.

Do read my original question #1450, Vixen:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Does anyone know of any case where Cassation has overturned a previous finalized C of C verdict concerning the same crime case?

Hellmann was not finalized by a Court of Cassation. Your examples did not address my question. Want to try again?

 

[Numbers]

As it relates to 36b, no one really knows. Stefanoni simply suppressed the controls.

I have a feeling that the following page will not impress you. It is supplied so that others may see this case for what it was - in relation to the forensic-DNA testing.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/

In short:

- the prosecution suppressed 100 of 173 genetic profiles in the first month of processing

- the prosecution failed to disclose to the court which incarcerated Sollecito for two years (prior to trial) that the DNA analysis excluded him from the crime

- 90% of the documentation relating to the kitchen knife was never revealed

- there have been no DNA amplification records ever released, and amplification is the most likely source of contamination​

Critically, the way any lab assigns serial numbers and plate numbers to each amplification. There are Gap Profiles which were never disclosed, such that, "it was not feasible prior to trial to determine that the Gap Profiles related to the Kercher case or to identify the samples that corresponded to the Gap Profiles."

The following is what should have been done, which was not:

​

And finally....

​

Read through the specifics on each batch run and you'll get the idea.

This link is posted for two reasons.

One: perhaps someone like Vixen could go through it and point to any mistakes.

Two: so that others might understand the fraud Stefanoni tried to pull over the court. It almost worked!

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

Pay attention to July 18, 2009, when Bongiorno realizes that co-Prosecutor Comodi is making reference to DNA data which the defence has never heard of!!!

Bill, thanks for these posts with evidence-specific links, that, if pursued by ISF readers, show some of the very serious indications of lab malpractice or misconduct in this case. One would expect that this kind of practical empirical evidence of lab malpractice/misconduct would lead objective, truly skeptical persons to understand that the alleged case against Knox and Sollecito was a fraud or hoax perpetrated by certain Italian authorities - that is, Mignini and some of the police and scientific police.

The new Italian criminal law, Number 2016/133, CP Article 375, against fraud in the criminal trial and misdirection (fraud and misdirection in the criminal trial and/or investigation process) was enacted to provide the basis for officials who commit such malpractice or misconduct as was shown in the Knox - Sollecito case be brought to justice and penalized, IMO.

Here is an excerpt of the relevant text in the definition of the crime in CP 375 (Google translated, with my attempts at clarification):

CP Article 375 Fraud and Misdirection in the Criminal Trial and/or Investigative Process

Unless the fact (of the crime) constitutes a more serious offense, the following acts are punished with imprisonment of from three to eight years: the public official or the person providing a public service, in order to prevent, obstruct or divert the criminal investigation or process: a) artificially changes the material evidence, or the state of the places, things or persons connected with the crime; b) being required by judicial authorities or the judicial police to provide information in a criminal case, falsely states or denies the truth, or remains silent, in whole or in part, about what he knows about the facts of the case. If the fact (of the crime) is committed by destruction, suppression, concealment, damage, in whole or in part, or fabrication or artificial alteration, in whole or in part, of a document or an object to be used as evidence or in any case is useful to the discovery of the crime or its investigation, punishment shall be increased by a third to half. ...

Here is the original Italian text:

Art. 1 L'articolo 375 del codice penale e' sostituito dal seguente: «Art. 375 ( Frode in processo penale e depistaggio )

Salvo che il fatto costituisca piu' grave reato, e' punito con la reclusione da tre a otto anni il pubblico ufficiale o l'incaricato di pubblico servizio che, al fine di impedire, ostacolare o sviare un'indagine o un processo penale: a) immuta artificiosamente il corpo del reato ovvero lo stato dei luoghi, delle cose o delle persone connessi al reato; b) richiesto dall'autorita' giudiziaria o dalla polizia giudiziaria di fornire informazioni in un procedimento penale, afferma il falso o nega il vero, ovvero tace, in tutto o in parte,cio' che sa intorno ai fatti sui quali viene sentito. Se il fatto e' commesso mediante distruzione, soppressione, occultamento, danneggiamento, in tutto o in parte, ovvero formazione o artificiosa alterazione, in tutto o in parte, di un documento o di un oggetto da impiegare come elemento di prova o comunque utile alla scoperta del reato o al suo accertamento, la pena e' aumentata da un terzo alla meta'.

Source: https://legalederosa.wordpress.com/...so-penale-e-depistaggio-modifica-art-375-c-p/

 

[whoanellie]

Not your strong point? Stefanoni amplified the DNA she extracted from the cell to get a result.

Don't make me have to use bold.

But first she extracted the cell (only 1?) from its nucleus and grew the cell, correct?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[LondonJohn]

But first she extracted the cell (only 1?) from its nucleus and grew the cell, correct?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Now you're just being mischievous

 

[Vixen]

But first she extracted the cell (only 1?) from its nucleus and grew the cell, correct?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

The DNA - obviously a typo.

 

[LondonJohn]

The DNA - obviously a typo.

Nope. Not a "typo". Good old-fashioned scientific ignorance, as per usual.

Chain of conversation. Fatuous illiteracy highlighted for convenience:

Vixen:
She extracted the cell from its nucleus

Methos:
"She extracted the nucleus from the cell", is that what you want to say?

Vixen:
The DNA cell from the nucleus of the white blood cell, or whatever nucleated cell it was extracted from.


It couldn't be any clearer that even by the end of this exchange, Vixen continues to believe that DNA is a "cell". A trip to the British Library is definitely in order.......

 

[Bill Williams]

The DNA - obviously a typo.

Your "typo" excuse is wearing thin. You laud Liz Houle who has written a 'book" claiming that the most innocent of mistake is a bald faced lie.

Yet when Nencini writes that Raffaele's DNA had been found on the knife, or when you say there's a DNA cell inside a nucleus that is a typo.

Could your bias be any more transparent?

 

[LondonJohn]

Your "typo" excuse is wearing thin. You laud Liz Houle who has written a 'book" claiming that the most innocent of mistake is a bald faced lie.

Yet when Nencini writes that Raffaele's DNA had been found on the knife, or when you say there's a DNA cell inside a nucleus that is a typo.

Could your bias be any more transparent?

Of course, someone primarily interested in honest debate would reply with something along the lines of "Oh, my mistake. DNA is not a cell - it's a molecule." And then we'd all move on.

But that won't be happening in this instance, obviously............

 

[Annella]

I don't have a copy of WTBH to compare - goodness knows what happened to it.

As the legal process had not completed, it was obviously an attempt to pervert justice and a cynical attempt to get the 'Innocence Projects' behind her.

It really doesn't matter what Liz Houle does, she is not accused of murder and rape.

Neither is Amanda Knox. Oh, and Raffaele Sollecito, so often forgotten!

 

[LondonJohn]

Neither is Amanda Knox. Oh, and Raffaele Sollecito, so often forgotten!

Though to be fair, Knox and Sollecito were once accused by a conspiracy-obsessed and egomaniacal prosecutor, supported by police work riddled with incompetence and malpractice. And the accusation was supported - for all too long a period of time - by incompetent courts that were unlawfully deferential to the prosecution and who were incapable of weighing/evaluating evidence properly.

Thankfully for justice, the accusation has now been shown to be fundamentally incorrect and unfounded. Mignini might as well have accused my allegorical Mr and Mrs Bianchi - there was precisely as much credible, reliable evidence that they participated in Kercher's murder as there was of Knox and/or Sollecito having been involved.

 

[Matthew Best]

I sat in front of the television shouting, 'Rubbish!' at all the acts on TOTP. Whilst most of it was, there were golden moments, such as Jimi Hendrix following Lulu.

Not that it's important, but this never happened.

 

[Bill Williams]

Science now telling the Law to be careful

This from:

Nature
International Weekly Journal of Science - 12 February 2015

"Solid scientific evidence can be crucial for solving crimes. But science may have been progressing too fast for the courts and the juries to keep up. The problem was symbolized by a ruling last year in which Mark Dwyer, a judge of the New York State Supreme Court, declared that a forensic-analysis technique known as low-copy-number DNA testing was inadmissible because there was no consensus in the scientific community that it was valid forensic tool. The technique, which consists of amplifying very small amounts of DNA to obtain a profile, has been used to get convictions in various countries but has been criticized as being susceptible to contamination and having problems with reproducibility.

To help to bridge the divide between law and lab, leading forensic scientists held a meeting with senior legal experts in London earlier this month."

http://www.nature.com/news/forensics-specialist-discusses-a-discipline-in-crisis-1.16870

 

[Welshman]

The worst part would be if Vixen did this with malice aforethought. It would be just weird if not. Maybe it is to sell books - and cover up the proofreading error that put the murder on June 1st. Maybe it's an astrology thing which Vixen says works, although she knows not how.

In addition to lying about the details of the evidence, PGP have also used ludicrous arguments to support their case. This is from the fake wiki to explain no blood on the knife “the Meredith material isn’t derived from blood and instead a piece of tissue which TMB wouldn’t detect”. The fake wiki is making the ridiculous claim that a knife can be used to stab someone in the neck without coming into contact with blood. Wendy Murphy in her blog said the knife had been cleaned with bleach. Wendy Murphy was on the one hand saying Meredith’s DNA was on the knife and on the other hand was saying the knife had been cleaned with bleach which would destroy DNA. Vixen uses nonsensical arguments in her posts when discussing the knife/DNA evidence. If the prosecution’s evidence was so solid, why do PGP have to resort to using ridiculous arguments to support their claims?

PGP have not just lied about details of the evidence but also the actions of the prosecution. The fake wiki lies the negative controls were handed in at the Massei trial when in fact they were not. I recall Machiavelli telling the same lie. If the prosecution’s evidence was so solid, why do PGP have to lie about the actions of the prosecution?

The fake wiki claims there was no blood detected on the knife because it was below the threshold of what TMB can detect. In reality TMB can detect as few as 5 blood red cells which means TMB should have detected blood on the knife. If the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, why do PGP have to resort to using arguments without any scientific validity?

The prosecution have also lied about the evidence. During the Nencini trial prosecutor Crini lied that the bloody imprint on the bed matched Raffaele’s knife a claim the prosecution had not made before. If the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, why did the prosecution six years after Meredith’s murder have to invent a completely new lie about the knife?

Vixen and other PGP have constantly boasted how there was a mountain of solid evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele. The fact Vixen has to constantly resort to lying in her posts has completely destroyed this notion.

 

[Vixen]

Not that it's important, but this never happened.

It is a legend I have heard tell.

Oh gosh, it was on the Lulu Show. Same thing.

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/44-years-ago-jimi-hendrix-experience-banned-from-bbc/

 

[Bill Williams]

PGP have not just lied about details of the evidence but also the actions of the prosecution. The fake wiki lies the negative controls were handed in at the Massei trial when in fact they were not. I recall Machiavelli telling the same lie. If the prosecution’s evidence was so solid, why do PGP have to lie about the actions of the prosecution?

Far be it for me to say something nice about the PGP, but I don't think that this issue can be hung on them.

Judge Nencini writes in his 2014 motivations report, one that justifies convicting the pair, that Prof Novelli said that at one of the previous trials that Novelli had requested and received the negative controls from Stefanoni.

Whether that is true or not, that's what Judge Nencini writes. Nencini then goes further to issue a stern rebuke of Conti-Vecchiotti for not asking for them themselves. Paraphrase: "You can't see them if you don't ask!"

The problem here is not with the PGP - it is with Italian legal process. Stefanoni should have brought all her material to court, like the RIS Carabinieri did at the Nencini trial. And if she had brought the negative controls because Novelli requested them, where are they in the court record?

I don't think this one can be hung on the PGP.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

This from:

Nature
International Weekly Journal of Science - 12 February 2015

"Solid scientific evidence can be crucial for solving crimes. But science may have been progressing too fast for the courts and the juries to keep up. The problem was symbolized by a ruling last year in which Mark Dwyer, a judge of the New York State Supreme Court, declared that a forensic-analysis technique known as low-copy-number DNA testing was inadmissible because there was no consensus in the scientific community that it was valid forensic tool. The technique, which consists of amplifying very small amounts of DNA to obtain a profile, has been used to get convictions in various countries but has been criticized as being susceptible to contamination and having problems with reproducibility.

To help to bridge the divide between law and lab, leading forensic scientists held a meeting with senior legal experts in London earlier this month."

http://www.nature.com/news/forensics-specialist-discusses-a-discipline-in-crisis-1.16870

WTF! Friends of Amanda has gotten to Nature as well? Where is all of this PR money coming from?