The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[TruthCalls]

That couldn't possibly be the route of contamination; everyone knows DNA contamination is due to it being cultivated in dirt and then flying under the door.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716695daf97683b8ed.jpg[/qimg]

One of those things that has always baffled me was the failure of the Scientific Police to DNA swab the hallway side of Meredith's door, including the door knob and the door jam. The door had been closed and locked by the killer so it would have been a logical place to hope to find the killer's DNA or prints. Instead, the idiots don't test it because "the crime scene was on the other side". What do you say to that? Equally baffling, Raffaele says he tried to break the door down and the police know that.. that side of the door isn't tested for DNA.. and the prosecution then makes an issue of Raffaele's DNA not being found anywhere else in the cottage and therefore there is no source for contamination. I really don't know what to say to that either!

 

[Vixen]

Also, the other 2-4 male DNA haplotypes must have been placed there by those unknown men.

Either that or.....

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

So ignorant. There were DNA fragments that are found in dust (aka background contamination) and are not legally recognised as authentic. For DNA to be recognised in a court of law it needs to be a very strong 10-alleles at the minimum. Raff's DNA on the bra clasp where someone had forced it out of shape is a full house of 17 alleles.

This is as clear a piece of hard evidence as is a fingerprint on a gun.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, good lord. You've written some staggeringly silly things but this one takes the cake. Go back and read my post again and see if you can figure out exactly how your statement that I'm "claiming DNA cultivates on a glove" is so profoundly ridiculous. Pay special attention to the part about the gloves and touching things, specifically the door handle that Sollecito touched.



When are you going to learn that your saying something doesn't make it so? The experts disagree with you. That should be your first hint.



Sigh. Who said it did? Just when I think you can't top yourself with ignorant comments, you do. DNA is invisible to the naked eye which is exactly why the idea of a 'selective cleanup' was so very, very stupid.

So ignorant. Even Peter Gill states that secondary transfer is unlikely to happen after 24 hours. Why? because the organic material that contains the DNA (greasy sweat, blood, saliva) has an unfortunate tendency to completely dry up within an hour or less.

You are ignorantly claiming that a casual imprint of Sollecito's hand on the door some six weeks ago (and the delay was deliberately engineered by the defence) has been transferred by tertiary transfer .

Your lack of education in fundamental biology is beyond amusing. Fancy believing a new latex glove from a new box will cultivate Raff's 100% solid DNA and transfer it self to a metal bra clasp. Stefanoni never even touched the door.

The onus is on you to demonstrate that DNA jumps around like a flea on dog's backside.

 

[Vixen]

That's not what the point of the discussion was. But, once again, you apparently don't comprehend what you read very well. May we now expect you to never again mention the names of Balding or Garofano (or anyone else who did not testify in court) when it comes to this case?

By the way, that dirty gloves can contaminate evidence by transferring DNA is not a 'theory': it is an established scientific fact supported by numerous studies.

There is zero evidence the glove is dirty. That speck on the video could be a trick of light, a pixel, a crease, a shadow, graininess of the film. It is absolute bollocks to claim it contains Raff's DNA when he had never even been in the room (or so he claims).

 

[Vixen]

"That's right."?

What's right? That Hellmann appeal persecution expert Prof. Novelli was not a judge? Nothing new here, that's what I said...

What about my question about you having a "quote from the transcripts" for that "meteorite quote" attributed to Novelli?

Well, thanks to Stacyhs we know that Prof Novelli said that stupid thing to a newspaper a month before he said more stupid things in his actual testimony...

You said: "His testimony was accepted.", do you know, what he said? Hint: nothing about "meteorites striking courts"

Novelli showed elegantly and by use of statistical probability (as per correct ENFSI scientific standards) the likelihood the DNA was anybody other's than Raff's. That mathematical probability was >3bn/1 against.

Not even the defence bothered arguing it was not Raff's DNA.

Enter the defence's extremely silly theory Raff's DNA bounced around like a pogo stick to land on the very bend in the clasp where it was twisted by the perp and somehow wriggling its way underneath the sheet underneath the body, underneath the duvet, underneath the scattered debris of a burglary attempt the defence claims happened before the murder.

Even a five-year old can figure out the logic is a load a bunkum.

 

[Vixen]

But that quote was not given as part of his testimony. It was given in a newspaper interview. So you are wrong that the quote you provided was made by a judge and during Novelli's testimony.

Pity for you that Marasca Bruno accepted the testimony of Conti and Vecchiotti regarding the contamination over Novelli.

It says much about your moral standards you think a corrupt judges is great.

 

[Vixen]

Remember, the only things which are real are things presented at trial. The following is what the first provisionally convicting judge, Judge Massei, wrote about what he'd heard - he heard this, yet still did not consider there to be a route of contamination into the murder room:

​

It is usual for DNA of lab technicians and such medical staff to have their DNA taken to rule out an such contamination.

The DNA on the bra clasp is unique to Raff, unfortunately for your theory 'it could have been the DNA of Lalli'.

 

[Vixen]

One of those things that has always baffled me was the failure of the Scientific Police to DNA swab the hallway side of Meredith's door, including the door knob and the door jam. The door had been closed and locked by the killer so it would have been a logical place to hope to find the killer's DNA or prints. Instead, the idiots don't test it because "the crime scene was on the other side". What do you say to that? Equally baffling, Raffaele says he tried to break the door down and the police know that.. that side of the door isn't tested for DNA.. and the prosecution then makes an issue of Raffaele's DNA not being found anywhere else in the cottage and therefore there is no source for contamination. I really don't know what to say to that either!

I expect the forensic team reasoned it had to make a decision where best to deploy its expertise. Outside in the hallway where Knox and Sollecito had deliberately let all and sundry trample about before the door was broken down would not have yielded any useful information for the purposes of hard evidence. Now the murder room itself had had just Batistelli, the police officer who was confronted with the scene and the medical/forensic/detective staff.

Raff was not in the room to place his DNA on the bra clasp when the body was discovered, as Knox and he knew it would be.

 

[Vixen]

The pro-Knox nutters like to use as an example of DNA transfer talcum powder. They will sprinkle it on their hands and then go around touching each other and everything 'to show how Raff's DNA spread'.

Only an ignorant moron would be convinced by such a claim for DNA is not contained in talcum powder nor in any powdery substance. It is possible you might pick up some DNA in dandruff, dandruff being associated with greasy hair and hair follicles do contain DNA.

Exercise no.1

Find a bottle of tomato ketchup. This represents blood, say, or any bodily fluid. Sprinkle a few drops on your work top. Leave it untouched and uncleaned. Six weeks later put on a latex glove and touch the now dried stain of ketchup. Any luck in transferring it to the glove?


Here endeth today's elementary lesson.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

The pro-Knox nutters like to use as an example of DNA transfer talcum powder. They will sprinkle it on their hands and then go around touching each other and everything 'to show how Raff's DNA spread'.

Only an ignorant moron would be convinced by such a claim for DNA is not contained in talcum powder nor in any powdery substance. It is possible you might pick up some DNA in dandruff, dandruff being associated with greasy hair and hair follicles do contain DNA.

Exercise no.1

Find a bottle of tomato ketchup. This represents blood, say, or any bodily fluid. Sprinkle a few drops on your work top. Leave it untouched and uncleaned. Six weeks later put on a latex glove and touch the now dried stain of ketchup. Any luck in transferring it to the glove?


Here endeth today's elementary lesson.

Vixen

Only an ignorant moron would use talcum powder as an example of DNA transfer.

Also, Vixen

Here, let's use ketchup.

 

[Bill Williams]

So ignorant. There were DNA fragments that are found in dust (aka background contamination) and are not legally recognised as authentic. For DNA to be recognised in a court of law it needs to be a very strong 10-alleles at the minimum. Raff's DNA on the bra clasp where someone had forced it out of shape is a full house of 17 alleles.

This is as clear a piece of hard evidence as is a fingerprint on a gun.

Since you never gave this evidence at trial, it has no standing. (That's your own standard of acceptance as posted recently on this thread....)

 

[Bill Williams]

The pro-Knox nutters like to use as an example of DNA transfer talcum powder. They will sprinkle it on their hands and then go around touching each other and everything 'to show how Raff's DNA spread'.

Only an ignorant moron would be convinced by such a claim for DNA is not contained in talcum powder nor in any powdery substance. It is possible you might pick up some DNA in dandruff, dandruff being associated with greasy hair and hair follicles do contain DNA.

Exercise no.1

Find a bottle of tomato ketchup. This represents blood, say, or any bodily fluid. Sprinkle a few drops on your work top. Leave it untouched and uncleaned. Six weeks later put on a latex glove and touch the now dried stain of ketchup. Any luck in transferring it to the glove?


Here endeth today's elementary lesson.

You've just increased by 50% the number of forensic-DNA experts who agree with the original prosecutors. One also said that that work had not followed international standards, and the other expert admitted not having had access to negative controls.

But now there's you, the winner of the 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Besides, everyone knows DNA is a protein nanobot, used by Mafia-led conspirators, financed by Masonic collectors of fast cars. But since these DNA nanobots are based on Windows10, then the Conti-Vecchiotti report cannot be trusted, and Dr. Peter Gill must be a scientific gun for hire.

Yes, that's it. Post 9 posts in 52 minutes filled with forensickey sounding stuff, and the conspiracy is exposed!

Case closed!

 

[NotEvenWrong]

So here is an actual review of the literature on DNA transfer by actual professional scientists:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497318303958

They refer to how DNA transfer is like ketchup, so rather than testing actual DNA transfer they just throw ketchup on everything and roll around in it like a bunch of idiots.

Just kidding, they don't actually do that. Sorry Vixen. Thought you may have had a point there for a second.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

One thing to note, is that in this paper, they don't use ketchup to test the dynamics of DNA transfer. They use DNA. Flippin' amazing. Some interesting passages in this paper, published in Forensic Science International: Genetics, the top forensic genetics journal in the world:

Contamination of DNA profiles through transfer events post crime scene establishment can occur through various means, including:

- Indirect transfer via gloves, because: gloves were not DNA free when purchased [267]; the box of gloves was not kept DNA free during use; gloves were not replaced after picking-up DNA by touching something with DNA on it prior to touching the exhibit (especially an area from which is to be sampled) or an area that was designated to be and remain DNA free (such as a bag of DNA-free tools to be used later) [58,60].

- Indirect transfer via dirty tools or equipment.

- Indirect transfer due to placement of exhibits on unclean surfaces.

Such events may occur due to: absence of proper procedures and/or poor compliance to them; poor training; ineffective cleaning procedures and/or compliance to such; and absence of environmental monitoring procedures [57,127,128,271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276].

Oh look all the things we have video proof the investigators did and did not do during evidence collection cause indirect DNA transfer, as confirmed by scientific studies and empirical evidence published in Forensic Science International: Genetics.

Contamination events can be mitigated by: having proper procedures relating to crime scene access, examination laboratories, and exhibits; wearing, appropriate use and replacement of personal protective clothing; effective training and competency assessments; use of validated effective cleaning procedures and regimes; application of effective contamination monitoring procedures.

Oh look, the investigators didn't do any of that either.

Furthermore, procedures should be in place that allow detection of contamination events if they occur, so that the profiles can be interpreted accordingly. This should include controls and checks for item to item transfer during examinations and sample processing.

Oh look again. They didn't do any of that either.

Crazy how the investigators at the crime scene didn't follow ANY established protocols to minimize contamination, and yet they somehow found a contaminated bra clasp. WEIRD HOW THAT WORKS EH VIXEN.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

So ignorant. Even Peter Gill states that secondary transfer is unlikely to happen after 24 hours.

Oh and Peter Gill never stated that. Just to clarify: you completely made that up.

I'm not saying you're a pathological liar, Vixen. It just seems like you have a compulsive urge to lie about matters big and small, regardless of the situation.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Now, given that we know Vixen and her chums are not, in fact, ◊◊◊◊◊◊* insane, and we have overwhelming scientific proof that indirect DNA transfer can and does happen, particularly under the conditions present when the bra clasp was collected, I am glad we can put this issue to rest, and Vixen won't return in x number of months saying the same exact thing about how DNA transfer to the bra clasp was impossible. Yep, sure is good to move past that, given how much overwhelming published scientific evidence there is on the matter. Yessiree.

 

[bagels]

The thing about guilters is there's no point in discussing the bra clasp if they think the kitchen knife is a good piece of evidence, and there's no point in discussing the kitchen knife if they think the luminol is good, and no point in the luminol if they think Quintavalle is a reliable witness, and no point in discussing Quintavalle if they think Raff dialed 112 minutes after the postal police greeted him at the cottage, and no point in discussing the 112 calls if they think a lady sized Asics bloody shoeprint was left on Meredith's pillow.

You start with the dumbest and most blatantly false evidence and work your way up the hierarchy in a good faith argument. Vixen remains at the starting line, believing something so insane not even a single court accepted it.

I actually worked out the least common denominator of stupid evidence that all guilters believe and it's Quintavalle. A couple of guilters couldn't quite bring themselves to disregard a mountain of irrefutable proof from CCTV video and phone logs proving Raff dialed 112 before the postal police arrived. Only one guilter that I know of is delusional enough to claim Rudy's bloody print is a lady's Asics. That of course being Vixen. That also might explain why she's the only guilter still posting here.

 

[Numbers]

So here is an actual review of the literature on DNA transfer by actual professional scientists:

[HILITE]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497318303958[/HILITE]

They refer to how DNA transfer is like ketchup, so rather than testing actual DNA transfer they just throw ketchup on everything and roll around in it like a bunch of idiots.

Just kidding, they don't actually do that. Sorry Vixen. Thought you may have had a point there for a second.

Here's an excerpt from the reference abstract:

Appropriately trained forensic practitioners are best placed to provide opinion and guidance on the interpretation of profiles at the activity level. However, those requested to provide expert opinion on DNA-related activity level issues are often insufficiently trained to do so. We advocate recognition of DNA activity associated expertise to be distinct from expertise associated with the identification of individuals. This is to be supported by dedicated training, competency testing, authorisation, and regular fit for purpose proficiency testing.

The excerpt is a polite way of stating that the biased opinions of technicians such as "Dr." Stefanoni who don't provide their raw DNA data and mislead courts about the presence of DNA contamination in their labs - claiming it is not present when it is, as shown in the control data - should not be considered credible expert evidence.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

bagels, Numbers:
Have you guys considered the possibility that DNA transfer may be like peanut butter or even Hershey syrup? Perhaps we're doing this science thing all wrong.

 

[Bill Williams]

So here is an actual review of the literature on DNA transfer by actual professional scientists:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497318303958

They refer to how DNA transfer is like ketchup, so rather than testing actual DNA transfer they just throw ketchup on everything and roll around in it like a bunch of idiots.

Just kidding, they don't actually do that. Sorry Vixen. Thought you may have had a point there for a second.

Why would you quote actual scientists when we already have Vixen to explain it to us? Why defer to expertise when Harry Rag has been carpet bombing comments sections for a decade with tales of "abundant quantities" of Raffaele's DNA being found?

We already know AK and/or RS did this. Why? Because there's another guy also named "Sollecito" who is a genuine, bona fide gangster. We already know the real Sollecito had called 112 after the arrival of the postal police because.... well, just because.

You're purposely and with malice aforethought skewing the ability to railroad two kids by posting actual expert opinion.