Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Bill Williams]

That's not true. Many people, including the police and the forensic scientists, know beyond any reasonable doubt who the killers are.

[/HILITE]

Wow. Now that's a sweeping statement considering that so many forensic scientists have come out in support of Conti and Vecchiotti and have condemned Stefanoni's collection and analysis of the DNA. Are "the" police all police? No police think they're innocent? How long did it take you to interview "the" police and "the forensic scientists" to determine your claim?

I think the testimony of many forensic scientists at the trials contradict your claim.

Do read their testimonies.

Vixen just said, "the forensic scientists" on purpose, so that I would spew coffee on to the smartphone. Thanks alot, Vixen!

We filled thread after thread, after thread, after thread, after thread, after thread, after thread, after thread, after thread, with me asking Vixen to name one, just one, forensic DNA expert who vouches for Patrizia Stefanoni's DNA work.

Just one.

She couldn't do it. She offered up one professor of DNA research who Judge Nencini (improperly) latched on to - but who had simply confirmed that Stefanoni had not - repeat: had not - followed accepted international standards in testing.

That was it.

Now? Vixen has the temerity to say that "the forensic scientists" know beyond any reasonable doubt who the killers (plural) are.

There are no "the" forensic scientists. This has been a lie propagated by the nutjobs...... Vixen parrots it. Just check this thread - which is perhaps why it is so long..... we've been asking for just one....

 

[Numbers]

This point requires some clarification.

The CSC is authorized by Italian law to review the grounds of a judgment when an appeal claims those grounds are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical, when the defect is to be found in the appealed decision on any document of the proceedings - including the documentation of the evidence. (CPP Article 606.1E) Thus, in reviewing a decision, the CSC may consider the logic of its generation, including the validity of its premises - that is, the evidence as it was documented by the lower court.

Exactly. As per my previous post

Yes, we are in agreement.

In essence, Italian procedural law (CPP Article 606.1E) requires that the grounds for a judgment be NOT lacking, contradictory or illogical; if the grounds fail that test under appeal to the CSC, the lower court judgment is subject to annulment.

Thus, the chain of logic that leads to the conclusions of the judgment, including the way the underlying documented evidence is admitted (or not admitted) and evaluated, is subject to CSC review whenever this chain of logic is challenged by an appeal.

 

[bagels]

No one except the killer knows - thanks to the Italian police, medical crime labs and courts, no one will ever know unless the murderer comes out and admits it or dies and something that proves they did it is found in what they leave behind. All the discussion here and elsewhere is so much wasted electrons and human time!!! Enjoy!!!

"Who really killed Meredith Kercher" is an un-answerable question for the higher powers, if there is such a thing.

"Who can we prove or not prove killed Meredith Kercher beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence that meets our established standards for reliability, credibility, and scientific consensus" is a question we can answer objectively, and the answer is: we can prove beyond reasonable doubt Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher, we cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt Amanda Knox killed Meredith Kercher.

Everything else is personal speculation which people can discuss endlessly if they wish, which often they do.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Lenox or Waterford

Not considering right or wrong. Pointing out it is a pointless waste of their time. Absent heavily verifiable proof/evidence and an entre' into the Italian justice system. Which I have no doubt they will never achieve.

fueler,

You had previously written in comment #364, "No one except the killer knows - thanks to the Italian police, medical crime labs and courts, no one will ever know unless the murderer comes out and admits it or dies and something that proves they did it is found in what they leave behind. All the discussion here and elsewhere is so much wasted electrons and human time!!! Enjoy!!!" Even if one tosses the DNA evidence against Guede for whatever reason (good or bad), there is still more than enough to convict him BARD; namely his bloody handprint, bloody shoe prints of a type of shoe he was known to possess, his admission that he was present, and his fleeing the country before he was a suspect. Some cases are maddening because there is so little reliable evidence (West Memphis Three); some cases are maddening because the evidence points in multiple directions (JonBenet Ramsey); and some cases are crystal-clear.

 

[Mike1711]

Do you think Stefanoni and the Rome labs were not aware of all these issues? It is a fact Amanda's blood on the faucet/tap was fresh from the night of the murder. She said so herself. There is no getting away from the fact Amanda and Mez were almost certainly bleeding at the same time, and Amanda in quite copious quantity that there was more of her DNA than Mez' in the mixed sample.

In addition, why do think Marasca found she washed her hands of Mez' blood? Shedding DNA that only comes from intense friction (rubbing of hands together). No, contrary to Conti's Netflix assertion, DNA does not fly around like dust.

I would assume they did know about the possibility of harmless DNA mixing...but chose not to dwell on anything prejudicial to Mignini's circus.
AK noticed the blood for the first time the day after the murder. How could she have known about something she only discovered a day later?

Marasca court did not find that AK washed blood from her hands. A lower court did (Or was B/M mistaken about the lower court findings?) and that defines it as a judicial truth which the B/M court are lumbered with. It's the way the law works in Italy.

For the last time the Appeal Court is not a fact finding court.

What do you think one of the components of dust in a home is? I will give you a clue...it starts with D and ends in A. Yep...lots of the dust is skin cells, hair fragments, etc.. floating DNA.

 

[acbytesla]

Do read Crini's comments in Nencini about Vecchiotti, and even in Hellmann she was asked about her scandalous negligence - some believe, crooked - in another case.

I think I believe the Italian national press over you.

I was under the impression that your days fighting windmills was over. I see I was wrong.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do you think Stefanoni and the Rome labs were not aware of all these issues? It is a fact Amanda's blood on the faucet/tap was fresh from the night of the murder. She said so herself. There is no getting away from the fact Amanda and Mez were almost certainly bleeding at the same time, and Amanda in quite copious quantity that there was more of her DNA than Mez' in the mixed sample.

In addition, why do think Marasca found she washed her hands of Mez' blood? Shedding DNA that only comes from intense friction (rubbing of hands together). No, contrary to Conti's Netflix assertion, DNA does not fly around like dust.

No, Amanda did not say that nor is it a fact that her blood was on the faucet "fresh from the night of the murder". This is her testimony:

"MIGNINI: When you saw the bathroom for the last time, were there
traces of blood in it?
AK: No. "

The inference is that the couple tiny drops of blood on the faucet were not there in fact until the murder. However, they could well have been there and Amanda simply did not see them. If they were, in truth, from her cleaning her infected ear, the drops could have fallen as she was cleaning them and she didn't notice it. She cannot say there was blood if she did not see it. It doesn't mean the tiny drops weren't there.

Shedding of epithelial cells occurs naturally and without having to use "intense" (or any) friction. Dust itself contains naturally shed epithelial cells. "Household dust may contain some human DNA from shed epithelial cells. " (Crime Reconstruction. Chisum, Turvey, pg 274)

 

[Vixen]

No, Amanda did not say that nor is it a fact that her blood was on the faucet "fresh from the night of the murder". This is her testimony:

"MIGNINI: When you saw the bathroom for the last time, were there
traces of blood in it?
AK: No. "

The inference is that the couple tiny drops of blood on the faucet were not there in fact until the murder. However, they could well have been there and Amanda simply did not see them. If they were, in truth, from her cleaning her infected ear, the drops could have fallen as she was cleaning them and she didn't notice it. She cannot say there was blood if she did not see it. It doesn't mean the tiny drops weren't there.

Shedding of epithelial cells occurs naturally and without having to use "intense" (or any) friction. Dust itself contains naturally shed epithelial cells. "Household dust may contain some human DNA from shed epithelial cells. " (Crime Reconstruction. Chisum, Turvey, pg 274)

Once again you are misrepresenting by omission. Amanda admitted it was her blood on the faucet/tap. I can only imagine you denied this because you have a mission to conceal the true facts.

As for dust, it only contains fragments, not sequences adequate for DNA testing. The DNA found for Raff on the bra clasp was a clear 17 alleles - all above the US standard of 50 RFU's, to control against background contamination (of the very dust particles you are talking about) - and only 10-11 is needed legally to confirm a match to an identitified person. Out of 23 chromosomes there was a match on seventeen. The probability of that happening by chance or caused by a fragment in a pile of dust is literally 3bn to one against in this case. Not only was the autosomal profile tested but a second one was run on the Y-haplotype, which matched only Raff and his close male relatives. Stefanoni is female so it would not have come from her, glove or no glove.

The fact that little evidence from Sollecito and none from Knox was found in Meredith's room is being cited as proof they weren't there, belies a mistaken perception that criminals MUST leave forensic evidence of themselves at the crime scene when in fact, it's surprisingly common that they don't. As explained by Ellen Kreitzberg, JD, Professor of Law at Santa Clara University:

"The DNA testing and evidence only occurs in a situation where the assailant leaves biological evidence behind. For the most part, we are talking about rape cases where there is semen left that can be tested. There are occasionally non-rape cases where the assailant may have left behind hair fragments or fingernail fragments that are of a sufficient quantity that they can be tested for DNA. But if no biological evidence is left behind, which is what occurs in most cases in the criminal justice system, no DNA testing can occur. The second qualifier is: even among those cases where there is biological evidence left behind that can be tested, if it is not gathered and collected and preserved properly, you will end up with a false test.

So I think the possibilities with DNA testing are immense in terms of being able to exonerate certain people, or on the other hand, definitively indicate that they were the perpetrator. But it still will not be available in somewhere between 70 and 75 percent of the cases in the criminal justice system, perhaps even more. So it is not the silver bullet that is going to solve our criminal justice system problems."

Amazingly, 70-75% of cases reveal no usable DNA! And it's far from uncommon for there to be no hair,nails or bodily fluids either.

http://perugiamurderfile.typepad.co...-trace-of-them-in-meredith-kerchers-room.html

 

[Vixen]

I was under the impression that your days fighting windmills was over. I see I was wrong.

That's very quixotic of you.

 

[Vixen]

I would assume they did know about the possibility of harmless DNA mixing...but chose not to dwell on anything prejudicial to Mignini's circus.
AK noticed the blood for the first time the day after the murder. How could she have known about something she only discovered a day later?

Marasca court did not find that AK washed blood from her hands. A lower court did (Or was B/M mistaken about the lower court findings?) and that defines it as a judicial truth which the B/M court are lumbered with. It's the way the law works in Italy.

For the last time the Appeal Court is not a fact finding court.

What do you think one of the components of dust in a home is? I will give you a clue...it starts with D and ends in A. Yep...lots of the dust is skin cells, hair fragments, etc.. floating DNA.

For the last time, you will not find proper DNA samples in house dust. That's not how DNA profiling works. Fragments of 6 - 8 alleles were found on the bra fabric of Amanda and Rudy, which are not considered adequate evidence (but yet caused Gill's pal Pascali to walk off the case, no doubt under the priniciple a defence lawyer can no longer represent a client he believes to be guilty).

For the umpteenth time, Marasca reiterated (did not challenge nor dismiss, as it did the knife/bra DNA evidence) that Amanda was there, at the scene of the crime and shed her DNA as she washed off Mez' blood.

Do let us know what on earth she was doing coming into contact with Mez' blood.

 

[Vixen]

fueler,

You had previously written in comment #364, "No one except the killer knows - thanks to the Italian police, medical crime labs and courts, no one will ever know unless the murderer comes out and admits it or dies and something that proves they did it is found in what they leave behind. All the discussion here and elsewhere is so much wasted electrons and human time!!! Enjoy!!!" Even if one tosses the DNA evidence against Guede for whatever reason (good or bad), there is still more than enough to convict him BARD; namely his bloody handprint, bloody shoe prints of a type of shoe he was known to possess, his admission that he was present, and his fleeing the country before he was a suspect. Some cases are maddening because there is so little reliable evidence (West Memphis Three); some cases are maddening because the evidence points in multiple directions (JonBenet Ramsey); and some cases are crystal-clear.

Even if you ignore the knife and bra clasp evidence, there is still more than enough evidence to convict Amanda and Raff. There's the scientific, objective luminol traces, the phone logs, lack of alibi, and the myriad lies, all centred around the key murder times.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Even if you ignore the knife and bra clasp evidence, there is still more than enough evidence to convict Amanda and Raff. There's the scientific, objective luminol traces, the phone logs, lack of alibi, and the myriad lies, all centred around the key murder times.

Hi Vixen,
The knife and bra clasp evidence is ignored because it wasn't processed nor analyzed correctly, leading to false positives, and this is corroborated by every scientific expert (outside of paid prosecution witnesses) who have analyzed the evidence and published peer reviewed literature in the top scientific journals.

Furthermore, the luminol traces (as we have covered well over a hundred times in this thread) tested negative for blood using more specific TMB testing. Thus they were almost certainly false positives. The phone logs, when analyzed correctly, show that Raffaele called the police (and he called before they arrived). This is further evidence he and Amanda are innocent, because why would he "find the body" and call the police if they were involved? Makes no sense to a rational, critical thinking person.

Don't know what you mean by a lack of alibi. Meredith's stomach contents gives a time window of when she was murdered by Rudy Guede (the only person who left reliable, correctly analyzed, evidence of himself at the crime scene. As confirmed by the forensic and laboratory records, and numerous independent scientific experts), and there is proof that Amanda and Raffaele interacted with the computer in Raffaele's apartment during that time window. In other words, they actually have an alibi. People who are clear headed, rational thinkers, and not mentally ill have accepted this fact for years now.

The only lies were from Mignini, Stefanoni, the Perugian Law enforcement, and the corrupt judiciary. Oh and the pack of malicious internet trolls co-opted by the prosecution because they weren't intelligent enough to critically analyze the early tabloid headlines and bought them hook, line, and sinker. And now their narcissistic personality disorders are taking over and their ego won't let their mind accept they were wrong, may be more than a little crazy, and probably aren't all that smart after all. This is the organized pro-guilt PR effort we are witnessing that has ramped up after the release of the Netflix documentary.

Hope that helps!

 

[Bill Williams]

For the last time, you will not find proper DNA samples in house dust. That's not how DNA profiling works. Fragments of 6 - 8 alleles were found on the bra fabric of Amanda and Rudy, which are not considered adequate evidence (but yet caused Gill's pal Pascali to walk off the case, no doubt under the priniciple a defence lawyer can no longer represent a client he believes to be guilty).

For the umpteenth time, Marasca reiterated (did not challenge nor dismiss, as it did the knife/bra DNA evidence) that Amanda was there, at the scene of the crime and shed her DNA as she washed off Mez' blood.

Do let us know what on earth she was doing coming into contact with Mez' blood.

For the umpteenth time none of this is true for reasons explained umpteen times.

 

[Vixen]

Hi Vixen,
The knife and bra clasp evidence is ignored because it wasn't processed nor analyzed correctly, leading to false positives, and this is corroborated by every scientific expert (outside of paid prosecution witnesses) who have analyzed the evidence and published peer reviewed literature in the top scientific journals.

Furthermore, the luminol traces (as we have covered well over a hundred times in this thread) tested negative for blood using more specific TMB testing. Thus they were almost certainly false positives. The phone logs, when analyzed correctly, show that Raffaele called the police (and he called before they arrived). This is further evidence he and Amanda are innocent, because why would he "find the body" and call the police if they were involved? Makes no sense to a rational, critical thinking person.

Don't know what you mean by a lack of alibi. Meredith's stomach contents gives a time window of when she was murdered by Rudy Guede (the only person who left reliable, correctly analyzed, evidence of himself at the crime scene. As confirmed by the forensic and laboratory records, and numerous independent scientific experts), and there is proof that Amanda and Raffaele interacted with the computer in Raffaele's apartment during that time window. In other words, they actually have an alibi. People who are clear headed, rational thinkers, and not mentally ill have accepted this fact for years now.

The only lies were from Mignini, Stefanoni, the Perugian Law enforcement, and the corrupt judiciary. Oh and the pack of malicious internet trolls co-opted by the prosecution because they weren't intelligent enough to critically analyze the early tabloid headlines and bought them hook, line, and sinker. And now their narcissistic personality disorders are taking over and their ego won't let their mind accept they were wrong, may be more than a little crazy, and probably aren't all that smart after all. This is the organized pro-guilt PR effort we are witnessing that has ramped up after the release of the Netflix documentary.

Hope that helps!

Dear me, there was no 'false positive'. The defence and Vecchiotti & Conti conceded the bra clasp DNA was that of Raff and the knife, that of Amanda and Mez, although Vecchiotti dishonestly claims in the Netflix film it was 'contaminated', yet under oath in court, she conceded there was no contamination in Stefanoni's labs.

Not a good start. I haven't the strength to read further.

 

[Vixen]

For the umpteenth time none of this is true for reasons explained umpteen times.

Problem is, you haven't 'explained' anything that refutes sound scientific results.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Dear me, there was no 'false positive'. The defence and Vecchiotti & Conti conceded the bra clasp DNA was that of Raff and the knife, that of Amanda and Mez, although Vecchiotti dishonestly claims in the Netflix film it was 'contaminated', yet under oath in court, she conceded there was no contamination in Stefanoni's labs.

Yes, the bra clasp had Raf's DNA on it [Edit -- and two other UNKNOWN CONTRIBUTORS. Proving it was contaminated]. It was a "false positive" because it was collected incorrectly, 46 days after the crime occurred, in a room that was ransacked and the clasp moved (as proven by video and photographic evidence). Thus the DNA was transferred there because it was collected incorrectly, as I said. It was therefore a false positive.

Vecchiotti claimed no such thing regarding (lack of) contamination in Stefanoni's lab. Your lack of critical thinking ability and cognitive distortions cause you to think otherwise, and no proof will cause your mind to act rationally towards this case. It would probably be best if you focused your PR efforts elsewhere, on forums that are less tilted towards skepticism and critical thinking.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12

 

[NotEvenWrong]

For the last time, you will not find proper DNA samples in house dust.

For the umpteenth time none of this is true for reasons explained umpteen times.

I wonder if Vixen has seen these results of empirical, rigorous, scientific research?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18420364

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mehmet_Demirci6/publication/281591131_Investigation_of_human_DNA_profiles_in_house_dust_mites_Implications_in_forensic_acarology/links/55ef0f5608ae199d47bff810.pdf

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12

 

[Bill Williams]

For the umpteenth time none of this is true for reasons explained umpteen times.

Problem is, you haven't 'explained' anything that refutes sound scientific results.

Sigh.

There was no "scientific" analysis, much less "sound scientific" analysis of "all the other evidence".

The break-in through Filomena's window? The case against it was the opinion of the cops and of Mignini. Opinion.

The scientific analysis of it was done by Channel 5 TV where they showed the climb in through Filomena's window was doable.

And on and on.

People occasionally come to this thread and say, "Are you people still on about this?" None other than Peter Q. started this "all the other evidence" stupidity in the late summer of 2011 when it was clear that the DNA work offered by Stefanoni was garbage. One of the Powerpoints on his stupid site was, "The 150 questions Amanda Knox must answer," or other such nonsense. One of those questions was, "What was the phase of the moon on Nov 1?"

You have been shown again and again that there is no scientific basis for the case which Mignini brought, and even less so for the case Crini slept-walked through in 2013. What's the "scientific basis" for Crini saying that the motive for the murder was pooh in the toilet?

Give it up, Vixen. For heaven's sake, even Mignini in the Netflix documentary shows how little they had - he said his "scientific basis" for suspecting Amanda was the duvet over the corpse. He said only a female-perp would have done that. There is NO science which suggests that.

However, I fully suspect you'll give more assertions with no science to back them up, but man o' man, will you claim they are scientific!

 

[Bill Williams]

Dear me, there was no 'false positive'. The defence and Vecchiotti & Conti conceded the bra clasp DNA was that of Raff and the knife, that of Amanda and Mez, although Vecchiotti dishonestly claims in the Netflix film it was 'contaminated', yet under oath in court, she conceded there was no contamination in Stefanoni's labs.

Not a good start. I haven't the strength to read further.

Please stop referring to Meredith with the familiar term. It is creepy and an insult to the kerchers.

 

[Planigale]

Once again you are misrepresenting by omission. Amanda admitted it was her blood on the faucet/tap. I can only imagine you denied this because you have a mission to conceal the true facts.

As for dust, it only contains fragments, not sequences adequate for DNA testing. The DNA found for Raff on the bra clasp was a clear 17 alleles - all above the US standard of 50 RFU's, to control against background contamination (of the very dust particles you are talking about) - and only 10-11 is needed legally to confirm a match to an identitified person. Out of 23 chromosomes there was a match on seventeen. The probability of that happening by chance or caused by a fragment in a pile of dust is literally 3bn to one against in this case. Not only was the autosomal profile tested but a second one was run on the Y-haplotype, which matched only Raff and his close male relatives. Stefanoni is female so it would not have come from her, glove or no glove.


http://perugiamurderfile.typepad.co...-trace-of-them-in-meredith-kerchers-room.html

You really should not use big words you do not know the meaning of. The sentence "Out of 23 chromosomes there was a match on seventeen", just shows you do not understand the process of STR typing. If you cannot be bothered to learn about this then do not comment. Writing stuff like this just displays your literal ignorance.

To help you learn this is a link to the loci of the STR alleles;
http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/coreSTRs.htm

STR are very short sequences of DNA 5 or so bp. Repeated several times so a 5 bp STR with a dozen repeats is only 60bp one needs only a fragment of DNA containing this 60 bp STR to come up with a hit. You can perfectly well get STR typing from DNA fragments. Indeed the DNA within shed epithelial cells from hands is fragmented, this is the process of apoptosis that takes place during the formation of keratinised skin.

The 50 RFU is about internal contamination stutter etc. not external. The problem is once you have mixed DNA then the rules about needing only 11 matches falls apart as especially if you are dealing with unknown contributors the STR could be from different people. In this case one of the STR repeats was common between Sollecito and the victim. FWIW I accept the DNA extract from the bra fastener most likely contained DNA from the victim and Sollecito. This is what the complicated statistical analysis Balding undertook was concerning how can one derive a likelihood ratio for mixed DNA. The problem remains as Steffanoni testified the time and source of DNA deposition can not be determined. Nor can the mechanism. There is adequate scientific studies to show that in trace DNA such as here that one cannot distinguish primary from secondary or tertiary transmission.

Marasca's comments that DNA deposition from the basin must have involved vigorous rubbing of hands (note not blood from Knox) is nonsense. This is where the judge is becoming an 'expert' himself. No one testified to this, Marasca invented this theory himself. The likeliest source is cleaning teeth. mouth epithelials are such a good source of DNA that just swilling water round your mouth will provide an excellent source of DNA, let alone brushing. This is a good example of faulty judicial reasoning that the ISC could say 'we do not question the evidence of the presence of DNA of Knox on the basin, we do however determine the conclusion drawn from the evidence was faulty, since the prosecution expert had testified the time and source of DNA deposition cannot be known'.

One question to ask is why was the quantity of DNA from Sollecito so much less than the DNA of Kercher on the bra hook?