Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Numbers]

If one were looking for an example of laboratory malpractice, the following account of the contradictory information forensic worker P. Stefanoni wrote in her report (RTIGF) and testified to compared to what she indicated in her written lab record (SAL) is a good example:

From this, it can be inferred that what is reported on page 78 of the RTIGF (and confirmed in the GUP questioning, page 178, where it is claimed that quantification was performed using Real Time and that quantification of the Y [chromosome] was not carried out) is not consistent with what was performed in reality. In fact, the tables show that quantification of the DNA extracted from all the samples taken from Exhibit 36 was carried out using the 770 Sequence Detector ABI PRISM™ equipment (Applied Biosystems); in contrast, it is apparent from the attached cards that the aforementioned method was only performed on samples D-E-F-G. A different method was employed for samples A-B-C using the Qubit Fluorometer™, and not mentioned in the final Technical Report, as would have been due and correct.

Regarding the interpretation of the quantification, it should be noted that on page 78, the following is stated: “the samples testing positive to quantification (samples A and B) were subjected to amplification and subsequent capillary electrophoresis…”.

As regards the quantification of sample A (knife handle) the results obtained with the Qubit Fluorimeter™ show that the concentration of DNA in this sample was equal to 0.08 ng/μl. Taking into account that the “quantity of extract” was 50 μl (c.f. SAL), and multiplying 0.08 ng/μl x 50 μl, the total [amount] of DNA was equal to 4 ng: certainly a significant quantity, which allowed sample A to be considered positive to quantification.

On the other hand, it is not possible to comprehend the criteria adopted in the assessment of the positive quantification result for sample B and the negative result for sample C, given that the same result, “too low”, was obtained for both samples: that is, a value which must be considered not only below the sensitivity threshold of the Fluorimeter indicated by the manual (DNA concentrations equal to 0.2 ng/μl), but below 0.08 ng/μl, a value which the Fluorimeter detected for sample A.
Nor is it comprehensible, considering the negative results on sample B, what Dr. Stefanoni reported during the GUP questioning (page 178) where she stated that the DNA in sample B, quantified with Real Time PCR (it is recalled that such quantification as confirmed during the hearing was never carried out or, at least, no documentation was provided to support this claim), was “in the order of some hundreds of picograms”, a value which does not appear in any of the documents provided to us (SAL, Fluorimeter report, Real Time report, RTIGF).

It is no wonder, then, that forensic worker P. Stefanoni declined to provide a copy of the raw DNA data including the results for positive and negative controls to the court or to the defense. That raw DNA data, which could not be readily falsified by hand, would have been revealing of actual levels of contamination and many other interesting details of the laboratory effort.

Source of quote: https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...egarding-item-36-knife/quantification-of-dna/

 

[Mary_H]

I am glad you have brought all this up, because there could be a couple of continuations here....
One thing is certain, he threw the rock with maximum speed. 28 mph in fact.
The embedded glass shard is the most fascinating piece of evidence, and was absolute proof of an external event. It is impossible to get this from the Massei nonsense inside the room, and in fact drew me into the web.
Ron Hendry identified debris in Filomena's room, and there is a fresh scrub mark where Rudy stood on the lower window timber surround, but I do like the forensics of the break (in) .

Thanks, Samson. Yes, there is no way the rock was thrown from the inside. That's just crackers.

I appreciate Ron Hendry no end, but I think he went into his analysis trying to prove that Rudy came in through the window, instead of without a bias.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary_H,

Have you accounted for: "A glass shard in the murder room next to Rudy Guede’s bloody shoeprint"?

The problem with the entire investigation, as we all know, is how shoddily and carelessly it was conducted. The investigators went into Meredith's room after walking all through the rest of the house. It's entirely possible Rudy tracked the glass in there, but if he did, why was there no other glass along the route from Filomena's room to Meredith's?

And: "Since the murder, security bars have been installed on the window which raises the question: If Romanelli’s window really was an ‘illogical’ entry point for a burglar, why were security bars installed"?

That's a matter of someone believing the window was a logical entry point, and acting accordingly; it's not proof.

And Guede's statement: "... in front of me there was a room, a bedroom, I saw there was the window, it was open, anyway there was this window and it was visible also from the yard ..."?

It is very difficult to tease the lies, truth and half-truths out of the chronological jumble of Rudy's statements. Accomplished liars include certain details to manipulate the listener for various purposes. You have to keep in mind that he gathered a lot of information in the news about the murder in the three weeks he was on the lam. I have to admit I have not read his whole testimony (as I've said, Rudy was never important to me). Is he saying he came out of the bathroom and fell because his pants weren't fastened? Come off it.

The window to Filomena's room is not in front of him when he comes out of the bathroom. A lot of the diagrams of the interior of the house have been simplified, making it look like you could come directly out of the bathroom and fall in front of Filomena's room, but the diagram about 1/4 of the way down this page shows how Rudy's pants would have to stay up through the contortions required to get around the laundry, the kitchen, some big pieces of furniture, and then a twist to the left in order to see Filomena's window.

And: The security bars on the window, made it pointless or difficult for the climber, in the demonstration, to pull himself up to the window ledge.

<snip>

See: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guedes-break-in/

Thanks for posting this link, Numbers, so I can watch that video again. I have to admit I was wrong about the editing. Now it does look to me as if the climber did show essentially the entire climb. I was wrong about that. I will humbly remove that point from my argument.

I think overall the major point of focusing on the break-in was to disprove Mignini's theory of a staged break-in committed by Amanda and Raffaele. That can be done, however, as Samson stated, and without any evidence that Rudy went in through the window.

 

[bagels]

The prosecution was really stupid to try to prove the rock was thrown from the inside, when it was clearly self evident beyond any doubt it twas thrown from the outside.

But in Italy the prosecution doesn't have to be good, in fact they don't even have to win the case at trial, because the Supreme Court will just decide whatever they want later anyway.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks for pointing out that in Italy DNA follows different scientific rules.

That's what the guilters have been saying all this time.

But, back to the tedious business of looking at evidence and science and reason and logic, here is another excerpt from a scientific publication on LCN DNA:

4. Discussion
The efficacy of genotyping LCN DNA samples by multiplex PCR of STR loci can be improved by increasing the number of PCR cycles. We propose that 34-cycle PCR is a valuable tool when samples that could not be sufficiently analysed after the standard PCR procedure have to be reanalysed. The potential of this delicate new application of the PCR technology can only show to be an advantage if the analysis is executed under rigorously clean laboratory conditions with proper negative and positive controls and if the guidelines for the evaluation of the profiles are fully taken into account [2].
Finally, in the course of this study, it appeared that reamplification of PCR products from LCN samples with an extra 6 PCR cycles seems to offer an alternative and promising new approach for typing LCN samples in the forensic DNA practice.

References
[1] E.A. Cotton, R.F. Allsop, J.L. Guest, R.R. Frazier, P. Koumi, I.P. Callow, A. Seager, R.L. Sparkes, Validation
of the AMPFlSTR SGM Plus system for use in forensic casework, Forensic Sci. Int. 112 (2000) 151– 161.
[2] P. Gill, J. Whitaker, C. Flaxman, N. Brown, J. Buckleton, An investigation of the rigor of interpretation rules for STRs derived from less than 100 pg of DNA, Forensic Sci. Int. 112 (2000) 17–40.
Source: Efficacy and limits of genotyping low copy number
DNA samples by multiplex PCR of STR loci
A.D. Kloosterman*, P. Kersbergen
Netherlands Forensic Institute, Volmerlaan 17, 2288 GD Rijswijk, The Netherlands
International Congress Series 1239 (2003) 795– 798

https://www.isfg.org/.../31f9316afbc584bc0befd4454d6cd38c4f064f3a....

It's another paper in the scientific literature on LCN DNA profiling that insists on such details as contamination control, use of negative and positive controls, and following the guidelines developed by scientists such as Professor Gill.

I am glad you mentioned this, as Raff's DNA was >100 picograms: NOT LCN and 100% his only.

 

[Stacyhs]

Okay, you have more information than I on that subject.



I didn't suggest any of the burglaries were not committed by Rudy. My implication was intended to be that he had more than one MO. I believe some people think he committed all the burglaries the same way, but the fact is that 4/6 of his alleged burglaries did not involve climbing and breaking windows, and 2/6 did.

I understand that. A burglar will adapt to whatever circumstances are presented to him. If the intended victim is on the ground floor, as was the case of the school, there is no need to climb anything.

By the same token, if he could actually climb to Filomena's window, he may not have needed to break the glass with a rock at all. He could have used his flashlight.

It is more difficult to climb up to the window carrying a rock (or as Vixen would call it, a "boulder" than it is to throw it a few feet directly across from the parking area. Likewise, while carrying a flashlight. As has been previously discussed, throwing the rock from the elevated parking area would have given Guede a faster and easier way to get away had there been any reaction to the breaking of the glass.

Okay, assuming the burglary was planned. If he spent any time in that room at all, though, you would think he would have snagged her laptop.

His first goal was to find cash as his rent was due, not things he would have to take the time to fence. It would also be logical for him to see exactly what was available in the rest of the house first before deciding what to take as he had to carry his loot without attracting attention.

Then there should have been mud on his shoes, and in the room.

Not necessarily. If you look at photos, the ground is covered in vegetation, not mud.

Yes.



Wasn't Filomena's window strong and presumably locked? Didn't the owner feel it was secure enough not to merit a grill? The balcony was visible from above, while Filomena's window was visible from the street. Six of one... both equally difficult and dangerous, and maybe the balcony door was not locked, in the same way Filomena's shutters were not.

The outside shutter was not closed due to wood swelling, therefore unlocked. Apparently, the owner felt it was secure, but it obviously was not. Filomena had complained to the landlord about being unable to close and lock her outside shutters. The window has since had bars installed. The window was only visible from the street by cars coming from one direction. My friend walked the street from both directions and confirmed this. If the traffic on this holiday was slow, the chances of not being seen were better there than in the view of the many apartments from above.
Why would the balcony door not be locked? Four girls would most certainly make sure the door was locked at night. Filomena's window was not secured because the outer shutters could not be locked, unlike the balcony door.

Again, you have more information than I on that subject.



I didn't say he staged a break-in.



I didn't say he used the bathroom after the murder, and indeed, if he had, his bloody footprints would have led to the bathroom instead of out the door.



Why would he move toward the door if he knew the window was open? Why would he be afraid of Meredith if she caught him in the act of being in there? Why not just run? Did she have a gun?

Because if he came out of the other bathroom as he said he did and the evidence proves, the front door was closer than Filomena's bedroom. He would not want Meredith to catch him because she could identify him to police as having broken in. He couldn't just run because the front door was locked and he didn't have the key. It had to be locked and unlocked by a key from the inside, too. He couldn't get the key because Meredith probably had put them in her purse.

There is no sign of struggle anywhere except in Meredith's room. If she had come out and he had chased her, they probably would have knocked over one of those flimsy clothing racks that were standing in the hall.

He didn't have to chase her. if she heard him trying to open the locked front door, she may have peeked out of her room, saw him, screamed, and he then ran down the hall and attacked her in her room.

In the end, since we can't answer the question of how Rudy got in, we will be guided by our biases. I want Rudy to have gotten Meredith to let him in somehow and most other people want Rudy to have broken in through the window. To me, the question was never that important, because it said nothing about Amanda and Raffaele, who were my focus.

I believe Guede stayed as close to the truth as he could when recounting the order of how things happened. it's easier to remember the truth than it is lies. It is also easier to explain away evidence.

 

[Mary_H]

The prosecution was really stupid to try to prove the rock was thrown from the inside, when it was clearly self evident beyond any doubt it twas thrown from the outside.

But in Italy the prosecution doesn't have to be good, in fact they don't even have to win the case at trial, because the Supreme Court will just decide whatever they want later anyway.

It's very much a system aimed at keeping lawyers employed.

 

[Numbers]

Regarding the Evidence Collection and Laboratory Analysis and Reporting Malpractice for the Bra Clasps DNA Profile Test:
the Conti - Vecchiotti Report (excerpts):

Sample ID Code = 48896 {The Bra Clasps}
Furthermore, the following information is reported (cf. SAL {Work Status Report, a written lab record}):
Type of Trace:*PRESUMED SALIVA
Trace Description:*Presumed flaking cells – B (hooks)
Extract quantity: 50
Extract location: 271/F1
Analyses performed
Extraction date: 12-29-07

The SAL shows that the generic test for blood using tetramethylbenzine (TMB) was not performed on Exhibit 165B, and nor was any laboratory test performed to show the presence of biological material other than blood.
We maintain that it would have been necessary to proceed to morphological analysis in search of any cells that may have been present by means of coloration with any of the reagents commonly employed in histology (hematoxylin). Such a simple and quick test would have required a minimal amount of material that would not have in any way compromised the subsequent laboratory tests but would have been able to clarify the nature of the material taken from the item under examination.
Notwithstanding the omitted test for cells (and thus the failure to identify the material taken from Exhibit 165B), the Technical Consultant {P. Stefanoni} hypothesized the presence of “presumed flaking cells” on the aforementioned item.
The Technical Consultant’s hypothesis regarding the nature of the material analyzed (which was confirmed at the preliminary hearing and at the trial), is wholly arbitrary in that it is not supported by any scientifically*objective finding.….
From what has been explained above, we can draw the following conclusions about the analytical procedures performed on Exhibit 165B.
– Regarding the nature of the material taken from the item, there does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of presumed flaking cells. Hence the hypothesis formulated by the Technical Consultant about the nature of the material taken from Exhibit 165B is wholly arbitrary in that it is not supported by objective findings;– From the electrophoretic graph relative to the autosomic STRs, we can assert that relative to the markers D8S1179, D21S11, D19S433, D5S818, there was an erroneous interpretation of the peaks present in the electrophoretic graph*in that peaks were considered stutter whose height was above 50 RFU (D19S433 peak 14↑54), exceeded the threshold of 15% of the major allele (D8S1179, D21S11, D5S818), or were not in stutter position (D5S818), and thus should have been considered alleles. It follows from this that in the DNA extracted from Exhibit 165B are present several minor contributors that were not revealed by the Technical Consultant {P. Stefanoni};
– The electrophoretic graph relative to the Y chromosome*markers shows, besides the peaks indicated in the RTIGF as alleles, the presence of additional peakswith heights that exceed the threshold of 50 RFU which, despite not being in stutter position, were not taken into consideration by the Technical Consultant. It follows from this that in the DNA extracted from Exhibit 165B are present several minor contributors which were not revealed by the Technical Consultant, confirming what was already observed in the electropherograms of the autosomic STRs.– We find that the Technical Consultant arrived at this restrictive conclusion (presence of only two individuals: victim and Raffaele Sollecito) following an incorrect interpretation of the autosomic STRs as a result of having disregarded the recommendations of the ISFG*concerning the correct interpretation of mixtures, recommendations which, had they been followed, would have allowed one to conclude that several minor contributors were present in the trace besides the victim’s profile (major contributor). Hence we agree with Dr. Stefanoni’s statement regarding “the extrapolation of a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances belonging to at least two individuals, at least one of male sex” but we cannot accept the conclusion*stating that “the genetic profile is compatible with the hypothesis of a mixture of biological substances (presumably flaking cells) belonging”*only*“to Raffaele Sollecito and to Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher” insofar as, from what has been explained above, a mixture is present in which several contributors of male sex are present (a circumstance supported by the electropherogram relative to the Y chromosome, where several alleles are clearly present which, despite being particularly evident, were not taken into consideration by the Technical Consultant);
– The item was recovered 46 days after the crime, in a context highly suggestive of environmental contamination. The risk of incorrectly interpreting such environmental contaminatns from dust could have been minimized only by taking the care [avendo l’accortezza] to institute extremely stringent control procedures, including the analysis of extracts from sterile cotton swabs soaked with sterile buffer passed on ambient surfaces to take samples of dust, a procedure which was not carried out;
– Taking into account what has been explained relative to the inspection methods, having seen the documentation in the record, and in particular the DVD of the filmed investigation of the scene [indagini di sopraluogo], the official photos of the Scientific Police, and the statements made in court, we find that the universally noted*inspection procedures and correct protocols of collection and sampling of items were not applied*on Via della Pergola, even [those designed] to minimize environmental contamination and contamination from handling. From this it follows that it cannot be ruled out that the results obtained from Exhibit 165B derive from contamination phenomena in any phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.
Sources:
https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...tigf-regarding-item-165b/laboratory-analysis/
https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...he-scientific-police-on-item-165b-bra-clasps/

*ISFG is the International Society for Forensic Genetics
https://www.isfg.org/

 

[Bill Williams]

I am glad you mentioned this, as Raff's DNA was >100 picograms: NOT LCN and 100% his only.

Why, then, did even Judge Nencini write in 2014 that the defence was right to object?

There remains the fact that only a single amplification was made, and that as correctly objected by the defense of the accused, in order to have a reliable attribution, international protocols call for at least one repetition of the amplification, which was not possible in the present case due to the small quantity in the sample.

It sounds to me, then, that you are accusing Stefanoni of something else other than incompetence.

 

[Vixen]

Why, then, did even Judge Nencini write in 2014 that the defence was right to object?


It sounds to me, then, that you are accusing Stefanoni of something else other than incompetence.

Which DNA sample are you claiming Nencini is referring to?

 

[Vixen]

Regarding the Evidence Collection and Laboratory Analysis and Reporting Malpractice for the Bra Clasps DNA Profile Test:
the Conti - Vecchiotti Report (excerpts):

Sample ID Code = 48896 {The Bra Clasps}
Furthermore, the following information is reported (cf. SAL {Work Status Report, a written lab record}):
Type of Trace:*PRESUMED SALIVA
Trace Description:*Presumed flaking cells – B (hooks)
Extract quantity: 50
Extract location: 271/F1
Analyses performed
Extraction date: 12-29-07

The SAL shows that the generic test for blood using tetramethylbenzine (TMB) was not performed on Exhibit 165B, and nor was any laboratory test performed to show the presence of biological material other than blood.
We maintain that it would have been necessary to proceed to morphological analysis in search of any cells that may have been present by means of coloration with any of the reagents commonly employed in histology (hematoxylin). Such a simple and quick test would have required a minimal amount of material that would not have in any way compromised the subsequent laboratory tests but would have been able to clarify the nature of the material taken from the item under examination.
Notwithstanding the omitted test for cells (and thus the failure to identify the material taken from Exhibit 165B), the Technical Consultant {P. Stefanoni} hypothesized the presence of “presumed flaking cells” on the aforementioned item.
The Technical Consultant’s hypothesis regarding the nature of the material analyzed (which was confirmed at the preliminary hearing and at the trial), is wholly arbitrary in that it is not supported by any scientifically*objective finding.….
From what has been explained above, we can draw the following conclusions about the analytical procedures performed on Exhibit 165B.
– Regarding the nature of the material taken from the item, there does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of presumed flaking cells. Hence the hypothesis formulated by the Technical Consultant about the nature of the material taken from Exhibit 165B is wholly arbitrary in that it is not supported by objective findings;– From the electrophoretic graph relative to the autosomic STRs, we can assert that relative to the markers D8S1179, D21S11, D19S433, D5S818, there was an erroneous interpretation of the peaks present in the electrophoretic graph*in that peaks were considered stutter whose height was above 50 RFU (D19S433 peak 14↑54), exceeded the threshold of 15% of the major allele (D8S1179, D21S11, D5S818), or were not in stutter position (D5S818), and thus should have been considered alleles. It follows from this that in the DNA extracted from Exhibit 165B are present several minor contributors that were not revealed by the Technical Consultant {P. Stefanoni};
– The electrophoretic graph relative to the Y chromosome*markers shows, besides the peaks indicated in the RTIGF as alleles, the presence of additional peakswith heights that exceed the threshold of 50 RFU which, despite not being in stutter position, were not taken into consideration by the Technical Consultant. It follows from this that in the DNA extracted from Exhibit 165B are present several minor contributors which were not revealed by the Technical Consultant, confirming what was already observed in the electropherograms of the autosomic STRs.– We find that the Technical Consultant arrived at this restrictive conclusion (presence of only two individuals: victim and Raffaele Sollecito) following an incorrect interpretation of the autosomic STRs as a result of having disregarded the recommendations of the ISFG*concerning the correct interpretation of mixtures, recommendations which, had they been followed, would have allowed one to conclude that several minor contributors were present in the trace besides the victim’s profile (major contributor). Hence we agree with Dr. Stefanoni’s statement regarding “the extrapolation of a genetic profile deriving from a mixture of biological substances belonging to at least two individuals, at least one of male sex” but we cannot accept the conclusion*stating that “the genetic profile is compatible with the hypothesis of a mixture of biological substances (presumably flaking cells) belonging”*only*“to Raffaele Sollecito and to Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher” insofar as, from what has been explained above, a mixture is present in which several contributors of male sex are present (a circumstance supported by the electropherogram relative to the Y chromosome, where several alleles are clearly present which, despite being particularly evident, were not taken into consideration by the Technical Consultant);
– The item was recovered 46 days after the crime, in a context highly suggestive of environmental contamination. The risk of incorrectly interpreting such environmental contaminatns from dust could have been minimized only by taking the care [avendo l’accortezza] to institute extremely stringent control procedures, including the analysis of extracts from sterile cotton swabs soaked with sterile buffer passed on ambient surfaces to take samples of dust, a procedure which was not carried out;
– Taking into account what has been explained relative to the inspection methods, having seen the documentation in the record, and in particular the DVD of the filmed investigation of the scene [indagini di sopraluogo], the official photos of the Scientific Police, and the statements made in court, we find that the universally noted*inspection procedures and correct protocols of collection and sampling of items were not applied*on Via della Pergola, even [those designed] to minimize environmental contamination and contamination from handling. From this it follows that it cannot be ruled out that the results obtained from Exhibit 165B derive from contamination phenomena in any phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.
Sources:
https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...tigf-regarding-item-165b/laboratory-analysis/
https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...he-scientific-police-on-item-165b-bra-clasps/

*ISFG is the International Society for Forensic Genetics
https://www.isfg.org/

Why are you quoting Vecchiotti and Conti, when they were trashed by Chieffi?

 

[Vixen]

The prosecution was really stupid to try to prove the rock was thrown from the inside, when it was clearly self evident beyond any doubt it twas thrown from the outside.

But in Italy the prosecution doesn't have to be good, in fact they don't even have to win the case at trial, because the Supreme Court will just decide whatever they want later anyway.

Have you ever thought of applying to be a Forensic Detective?

There won't be any messing around with you in charge.

 

[Bill Williams]

Why are you quoting Vecchiotti and Conti, when they were trashed by Chieffi?

Citation please. Without one, then the 2015 Italian Supreme Court decision/motivations report takes precedence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Which DNA sample are you claiming Nencini is referring to?

Follow the links back in this thread.

 

[Vixen]

What the Christ hell is wrong with you?



Europe consists of 50 countries. 50 is more than one. Therefore a EUROPEAN standard is an INTERNATIONAL standard.

Clear now? (wtf of course it's not. How do you function on a daily basis?)

ENSFI Standards apply only to ENFSI members and a criterion for membership is you need to be a stipulated EUROPEAN country.

How do I function on a daily basis? Obviously being an accountant, I am of the same ilk as the Ben Affleck character in the film of the same name ('The Accountant', 2016), which must be, high on the asperger scale. This shows in that I only warm to prime numbers, otherwise I go into a strop. For example, a locker chosen in whcih to leave my belongings at the British Library must be a three-digit prime number.

Morning starts with a handful of red or black grapes (for their phenol content, supposedly good for kidney health; did you know your kidneys circulate your entire blood stream forty times a day), tomato juice with either two slices of lemon or a dash of Worcester sauce and salt, an orange or clementine, (to get the daily Vitamin C out of the way), a handful of mixed roast nuts, a calcium tablet with vitamin D, methylated vitamin B12 and B2 and Methylated follate to deal with the MTHFR mutation discovered in my DNA. DNA haplotype U5 is wonderful in the prime number respect, although my subclade U5a2a, is ahem, well, two is a wonderful number, too. A cafetiere of coffee, which must be arabica, preferably either Kenyan or Columbian, although robusta is great for espresso, preferably Lavassa is imbibed mornings only.

Then I will walk to work, exactly 5,237 steps, in precisely 27.5 minutes in a leafy conservation area with near zero traffic

Work will be memorising pi to 193 digits in quiet moments, liaising with numerous persons, preparing endless spreadsheets, computing figures and designing fancy pivot tables, whilst juggling seven (!) balls in the air.

Lunch is usually a smoked salmon bagel with cream cheese, a squeeze of lemon and a peck of black pepper, or leftovers from a previous evening or weekend meal.

Afternoon will be tea, together the correct ritual of using loose leaf top drawer quality only (no teabags nonsense) with the correct paraphenalia, such as a dainty bone china jug for the milk and proper tea cup, saucer and teaspoons, which ought to be shared by at least two persons, as in, 'tea for two'. If there are any social or networking functions, I hover by the door, ready to escape when no-one is looking.

Evenings will involve a freshly cooked meal usually involving items from the following group: onions, garlic, green pepper, quorn, kidney beans, lentils, peas, new potatoes, fresh salmon or other choice fish (but not prawns, due to an unpleasant allergy), pasta, rice, soup and to satisfy my ancient hunter-gatherer, pre-farmer DNA, a choice cut of sirloin steak now and again. Not all of them all at once. (Did you know, peas are fruit, grapes are berries and peanuts are legumes, not nuts?) If any wine is drunk, it must be high end and of a grape of a certain year. Thankfully, as this tends to be expensive, I don't get to drink a lot, mainly as I believe it to be a waste of money.

Whenever I go on a flight, I must have a proper airline meal and a glass of bubbly. This dates back to when I had a fear of flying. Now I have grown to enjoy it. However, the bubbly remains a fond habit, although it is no longer free.

In my spare time, like the Ben Affleck's character, I spend my time obsessively hunting down money launderers and tax dodgers and have a penchant for works of art, chamber music and ballet. As a barely functioning individual, I struggle to draw intricate pencil sketches of St Pancras Station in complex linear detail or compose symphony orchestral music to the level of Nigel Kennedy. Indeed, from my knowledge of how 'European' differs from 'International' it is clear it is a great struggle for me to get through any day...How do I function...?

We-eeeell.

 

[Vixen]

Follow the links back in this thread.

I take you have lost your thread.

 

[bagels]

Have you ever thought of applying to be a Forensic Detective?

There won't be any messing around with you in charge.

Me: glass moves in the direction of the projectile

PGP: *head explodes from shocking analysis*

 

[Bill Williams]

I take you have lost your thread.

It's there if you take time to look.

Otherwise, no matter.

 

[Bill Williams]

ENSFI Standards apply only to ENFSI members and a criterion for membership is you need to be a stipulated EUROPEAN country.

Judge Nencini wrote in 2014 that the Stefanoni lab did not follow international protocols with regard to generating reliable results with samples requiring more than one amplification.

The international standards that the Nencini was quoting were probably the ENFSI ones, although he did not specify.

 

[bagels]

Here's what the PGP actually believe

: