The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[acbytesla]

Unlike you and your patriotic friends, I go by the court documents.


Yours and Stacyhs' sole arguments seem to be, 'Why would a nice American girl stab her roommate? It's obvious it must be the Black guy all by himself, makes sense. Can't understand how any merits court ever found the pair guilty as charged [we'll ignore that Raff isn't actually American] and we'll ignore all the forensic evidence. We can dream up an 'explanation' for everything. U.S.A! U.S.A! **** you, Italy!'

Still stinging over the World Cup defeat? Or that America put a whupping on the Brits at Yorktown?

Courts of merit? Like Hellman? As for forensic evidence...ALL OF IT pointed to Rudy killing Meredith....Give it up Vixen. Amanda and Raffaele ARE innocent. Neither ever committed a crime of any kind before or since the murder. They also didn't conspire after a week of knowing each other with someone neither had said more than two sentences to.

 

[Bill Williams]

No matter how many times you show this clip, tertiary transfer of DNA simply does not happen. Peter Gill himself said secondary transfer had to happen 'within twenty-four hours'.

There is no way Raff's very strong robust DNA on the bra clasp (found under the body BTW) could have transferred from the door to the glove (on 18 Dec 2007, week no. 6) and then to the crook in the clasp.

Stop deluding yourselves.

I'm so deluded that I've just read a piece that said that the first problem with DNA forensics, is when people make sweeping generalizations about primary, secondary, and even tertiary DNA transfer.

I'm also reminded of the DNA testing on Nikumaroro Island to see if any of the artifacts found there c. 2015 had been left by Amelia Earhart in 1937. The items had been collected with proper forensic protocols, etc.

They ended up having to junk all samples because on one of them the DNA of the expedition leader, Gillespie, had been found. He'd been nowhere near the site of that item. When asking how it could have been his own DNA contaminating the batch.....

..... he was told that it's probably useless to try to second guess the potential routes of secondary or tertiary contamination, just accept it and move on.

Which the remaining guilter-nutters never do.

 

[Vixen]

Still stinging over the World Cup defeat? Or that America put a whupping on the Brits at Yorktown?

Courts of merit? Like Hellman? As for forensic evidence...ALL OF IT pointed to Rudy killing Meredith....Give it up Vixen. Amanda and Raffaele ARE innocent. Neither ever committed a crime of any kind before or since the murder. They also didn't conspire after a week of knowing each other with someone neither had said more than two sentences to.

That's a low blow, even by your standards.

 

[acbytesla]

That's a low blow, even by your standards.

Sorry. But you teed that one up for me.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's lying by omission. The knife in the box did not come into contact with contamination at any stage.

The knife was found in Sollecito's apartment. There is no way Meredith's DNA could have jumped onto it via the box being sent to forensics by the police station who received the box.

Stop reaching.

Given who has the burden of proof, it is not up to a defendant nor their counsel to show a route of contamination. It's up to the accuser to show that proper anti-contamination protocols were followed.

In this case, even the one forensic expert who would testify for the prosecution conceded that the prosecution forensic police did not follow protocols.

That alone should have ended the knife and the bra-clasp as evidence. Indeed, this point is a Rorschatch Test as to how people view this case.

 

[Stacyhs]

No matter how many times you show this clip, tertiary transfer of DNA simply does not happen. Peter Gill himself said secondary transfer had to happen 'within twenty-four hours'.

You really must keep up.

"That's not what the journal research shows. There are article after article after article talking about not just primary transfer -- we directly contact each other -- but secondary transfer. Now we're discovering there's tertiary transfer. A study by Dr. Peter Gill, who's one of the co-authors of our paper (on Holtzclaw) as well as a co-author of a recent journal article, found quaternary transfer."

https://www.thespectrum.com/story/opinion/2018/02/14/science-secrecy-and-lies-oklahoma/338473002/

We investigated the primary transfer of freshly deposited DNA from touched plastic, wood or metal substrates and secondary and tertiary transfer by a person wearing disposable nitrile-gloves and onto a third object. We show that with use of the new highly sensitive technologies available in forensic DNA analysis there is an enhanced probability to obtain a DNA-profile which has not been directly deposited on the object but is an outcome of one or more transfer events. The nitrile-gloves used by investigators during exhibit examination can act as a vector for DNA transfer from one item to another.

(Secondary and subsequent DNA transfer during criminal investigation,Ane Elida Fonneløp, Thore Ege, Peter Gill

There is no way Raff's very strong robust DNA on the bra clasp (found under the body BTW) could have transferred from the door to the glove (on 18 Dec 2007, week no. 6) and then to the crook in the clasp.

Not according to Gill:

It is accepted that the DNA profiles attributed to them were transferred by methods unrelated to the crime event itself.

The method of collecting, handling, transporting, and analyzing the bra clasp did not conform with basic protocols to minimize risks of cross-contamination. There were numerous opportunities in this process for cross-transfer and contamination of the clasp.

Consequently, the most likely explanation for the presence of Sollecito’s DNA is that it resulted from a contamination event, although the specific route cannot be discovered.

... the DNA samples recovered from the knife blade and the bra clasp were the type of observations to be expected if the transfer had resulted from a contamination event.

(Analysis and implications of the miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Peter Gill.
Forensic Science International: Genetics Volume 23, July 2016, Pages 9-18

Seems Prof. Gill does not agree with you. But why let that stop you from continuing to say otherwise?

Stop deluding yourselves.

From the evidence presented above, I'd give you that same advice.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's lying by omission. The knife in the box did not come into contact with contamination at any stage.

The knife was found in Sollecito's apartment. There is no way Meredith's DNA could have jumped onto it via the box being sent to forensics by the police station who received the box.

Stop reaching.

Stop deflecting, Vix. You claimed I "made all of that up" which I clearly did not. But you can't admit that, can you?

You cannot possibly know that knife never came into contact with any contamination so stop saying it didn't. Besides, no one here said the knife came into contact with MK's DNA.* It was to demonstrate how unprofessionally and carelessly evidence was handled. Or do you think putting the suspected murder weapon into an unsterile box previously used to hold calendars is the correct procedure for handling evidence?

*MK's DNA was never on the knife in the first place. Stefanoni screwed up.

 

[Stacyhs]

Unlike you and your patriotic friends, I go by the court documents.


Yours and Stacyhs' sole arguments seem to be, 'Why would a nice American girl stab her roommate? It's obvious it must be the Black guy all by himself, makes sense. Can't understand how any merits court ever found the pair guilty as charged [we'll ignore that Raff isn't actually American] and we'll ignore all the forensic evidence. We can dream up an 'explanation' for everything. U.S.A! U.S.A! **** you, Italy!'

Oh, please! Just stop making crap up. It shows just how desperate you are. If you can't present things honestly and accurately then you need to ask yourself why you can't.

It's precisely because we DON'T ignore the forensic science...or lack of...that we believe they are innocent. WE don't rely on body language, canoodling, somersaults, buying underwear, eating pizza, or not crying enough/too much unlike what you.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh, please! Just stop making crap up. It shows just how desperate you are. If you can't present things honestly and accurately then you need to ask yourself why you can't.

It's precisely because we DON'T ignore the forensic science...or lack of...that we believe they are innocent. WE don't rely on body language, canoodling, somersaults, buying underwear, eating pizza, or not crying enough/too much unlike what you.

Very well said Stacy.

I don't know Amanda at all. If she was guilty, I would want to see justice and have her imprisoned. I don't care that Amanda is American or that she hails from my city. All of that is irrelevant.

But guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And it wasn't.

But I'm not going to argue this DECIDED case for the 1000th time with Vixen. It's over and it's been over for years. Vixen and PQ are never going to accept it. But that is their problem. Not mine.

 

[Stacyhs]

No matter how many times you show this clip, tertiary transfer of DNA simply does not happen. Peter Gill himself said secondary transfer had to happen 'within twenty-four hours'.

There is no way Raff's very strong robust DNA on the bra clasp (found under the body BTW) could have transferred from the door to the glove (on 18 Dec 2007, week no. 6) and then to the crook in the clasp.

Stop deluding yourselves.

Originally found under the body but not collected or analyzed until 46 days later across the room and under a dirty rug among a pile of other things. Which. you. fail. to. mention. Talk about "lying by omission"!

 

[Stacyhs]

Very well said Stacy.

I don't know Amanda at all. If she was guilty, I would want to see justice and have her imprisoned. I don't care that Amanda is American or that she hails from my city. All of that is irrelevant.

But guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And it wasn't.

But I'm not going to argue this DECIDED case for the 1000th time with Vixen. It's over and it's been over for years. Vixen and PQ are never going to accept it. But that is their problem. Not mine.

I agree. I'd want her in prison for decades if she were guilty. There are Americans in prison around the world for crimes they did commit and that's fine and dandy with me. For Vixen to make the claim otherwise is just more evidence of the ridiculous lengths she will go to in her desperation. It's very sad really.

 

[LondonJohn]

No matter how many times you show this clip, tertiary transfer of DNA simply does not happen. Peter Gill himself said secondary transfer had to happen 'within twenty-four hours'.

There is no way Raff's very strong robust DNA on the bra clasp (found under the body BTW) could have transferred from the door to the glove (on 18 Dec 2007, week no. 6) and then to the crook in the clasp.

Stop deluding yourselves.

"Very strong robust" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


(Do you even actually know how many picograms of Sollecito's DNA were present on the tiny hook of that clasp (with not one picogram of his DNA on any other surrounding part of the clasp......)? Do you even know what a picogram is?)

 

[LondonJohn]

Unlike you and your patriotic friends, I go by the court documents.


Yours and Stacyhs' sole arguments seem to be, 'Why would a nice American girl stab her roommate? It's obvious it must be the Black guy all by himself, makes sense. Can't understand how any merits court ever found the pair guilty as charged [we'll ignore that Raff isn't actually American] and we'll ignore all the forensic evidence. We can dream up an 'explanation' for everything. U.S.A! U.S.A! **** you, Italy!'

Ah, I think I've spotted a flaw in your "reasoning" here, Vixen.

See, firstly you've created a rather nasty strawman by inventing all this stuff about certain commentators in this thread arguing for Knox's acquittal/innocence simply on account of her being American. Whereas every single one of those people about whom you've invented this strawman has actually argued cogently for acquittal/innocence based on a rational, logical, objective assessment of the evidence (and lack of evidence). That you have invented an argument from emotion/jingoism would appear to say a lot more about you than about those people you've attacked.

Secondly, there's the little matter of that other bloke who was unjustly investigated, charged, tried and convicted - and who also has now rightfully been acquitted and exonerated. Can you remember his name, Vixen? You do seem awfully fixated on Knox for some reason.....

And thirdly, a lot of pro-acquittal/pro-innocence arguers in this thread (including me) are not even American. Or Italian.

Interesting stuff, huh?

 

[Stacyhs]

That hook was forcefully pulled apart as evidenced by the shape of the hooks. So how did RS manage that without grasping the two sides of the back strap or the cloth the hoods were sewn to and pulling then apart? The PGP ignore that fact that no DNA of RS's was found anywhere else on the bra. Funny how Guede left his in a non-LCN amount.

Watch how the clasp is handled by Stefanoni and the others. They all hold it by the cloth and not the tiny hook, but we're supposed to believe that RS only touched the hook. PGP logic at its finest.

 

[Stacyhs]

That you have invented an argument from emotion/jingoism would appear to say a lot more about you than about those people you've attacked.

Amen to that!

 

[acbytesla]

I agree. I'd want her in prison for decades if she were guilty. There are Americans in prison around the world for crimes they did commit and that's fine and dandy with me. For Vixen to make the claim otherwise is just more evidence of the ridiculous lengths she will go to in her desperation. It's very sad really.

Yes it is sad. But she is never going to wake up and smell the coffee. She is going to repeat the same false factoids that you me and others as well as the courts debunked over and over again. I refuse to allow myself back down that rabbit hole.

I'm slightly interested in the ECHR and how Italy resolves it. I'm also interested in Amanda's recovery and what she does with her life. Her speech in Italy was great, but I wish she hadn't cried again. That says to me she still has work to do to put it behind her. My hope for Amanda and Raffaele that they can. That event and the surrounding media attention will always have some impact. But that doesn't mean it has to define them.

 

[Stacyhs]

Did it escape anyone's notice that Vixen, declaring my ten points as "made up", failed to counter any of them with actual contradictory evidence? As TomG would say "Hoots!"

 

[Bill Williams]

No matter how many times you show this clip, tertiary transfer of DNA simply does not happen. Peter Gill himself said secondary transfer had to happen 'within twenty-four hours'.

There is no way Raff's very strong robust DNA on the bra clasp (found under the body BTW) could have transferred from the door to the glove (on 18 Dec 2007, week no. 6) and then to the crook in the clasp.

Stop deluding yourselves.

You invented that claim, highlighted above. Read this abstract of a study, examining the probabilities of secondary and tertiary transfers of DNA. If you have the interest, you can purchase the whole study.

We have shown that the amount of DNA deposited on an object affects the probability of transfer. Secondly, the type of substrate material that DNA is deposited onto has an impact on transfer rates.

Nowhere does it say that tertiary transfer does not happen. It says the exact opposite. Indeed modern methods of detection mean that.....

We show that with use of the new highly sensitive technologies available in forensic DNA analysis there is an enhanced probability to obtain a DNA-profile which has not been directly deposited on the object but is an outcome of one or more transfer events.​

We investigated the primary transfer of freshly deposited DNA from touched plastic, wood or metal substrates and secondary and tertiary transfer by a person wearing disposable nitrile-gloves and onto a third object.​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26005954

Does this remind you of anything? (Pictures are taken by the Scientific Police in Dec 2007, 46 days after the murder, of a clasp ignored during the first forensic sweep on Nov 2, and found in December at a different location than as photographed 46 days earlier.)

​

Why do you need to invent factoids?

 

[acbytesla]

Did it escape anyone's notice that Vixen, declaring my ten points as "made up", failed to counter any of them with actual contradictory evidence? As TomG would say "Hoots!"

No. You did a good job at addressing every one and she didn't offer anything credible in return. But she'll be repeating her nonsense within days...maybe sooner.

 

[Stacyhs]

You invented that claim, highlighted above. Read this abstract of a study, examining the probabilities of secondary and tertiary transfers of DNA. If you have the interest, you can purchase the whole study.

​

Nowhere does it say that tertiary transfer does not happen. It says the exact opposite. Indeed modern methods of detection mean that.....

​

​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26005954

Does this remind you of anything? (Pictures are taken by the Scientific Police in Dec 2007, 46 days after the murder, of a clasp ignored during the first forensic sweep on Nov 2, and found in December at a different location than as photographed 46 days earlier.)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd51816a9a7.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/qimg]​

Why do you need to invent factoids?

Um....I do believe I presented exactly this earlier.