The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Numbers]

Deleted. Duplicate.

 

[Numbers]

Here's an annotated excerpt from the summary status of the execution of the ECHR judgment in this case. The bottom line is that Italy's responses (payment and action plan) continue to be awaited.

And, of course, contrary to the lies and misstatements of the guilters, the ECHR did find Italy in violation of Amanda Knox's rights under the European Convention of Human Rights in convicting her of calunnia (malicious accusation) against Patrick Lumumba.

Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECDocumentTypeCollection%22:[%22CEC%22],%22EXECState%22:[%22ITA%22],%22EXECIdentifier%22:[%22004-52517%22]}


Title: KNOX v. Italy

Description:
Lack of an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment by the police during the questioning of a young woman in a state of shock. Lack of legal assistance and of appropriate interpretation during the questioning.
Status of Execution: Action plan/report awaited {from Italy; date due: 24 December 2019}

Application Number: 76577/13

Judgment Date: 24/01/2019
Final Judgment Date: 24/06/2019
Supervision: Standard Procedure

Violations {by Italy as declared in the ECHR judgment}:
Right to be assisted by a lawyer Ill-treatment/torture (procedural violation, ineffective investigations) Lack of interpreter
Theme Domain:
Access to and efficient functioning of justice: Unfair judicial proceedings (criminal charges)
Right to life and protection against torture

AP Status: Awaiting Action Plan/Report {as of 22 October 2019}

Type: Leading {The resolution of this case is not dependent upon the resolution of any other case.}

Payment Information: Awaiting information on payment {as of 22 October 2019}

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

"..make a decision where best to deploy its expertise." That's beyond laughable. The door was locked from the hallway side - it HAD to be tested for DNA and/or prints but wasn't, but that's your 'crack' forensic team for ya.

So if "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." why were they back, 56 days later, spraying Luminol outside in the hallway and why do you now consider the results hard evidence? So clearly, by your reasoning, nothing obtained outside Meredith's locked bedroom should have been considered useful evidence. So then you agree there isn't a shred of forensic evidence against Amanda, right?

Amanda and Raffaele didn't "deliberately let all and sundry trample about"... that's just your uncontrolled bias speaking. They had neither any reason nor any authority to limit what other people did in the cottage. Just like neither Amanda, Raffaele or their defense teams had any control over when the police went into the cottage yet you make the ridiculous comment "...the delay was deliberately engineered by the defence". The police owned the crime scene and they decided who went in and when, not the defense team.

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

This story was published five years ago but it's completely relevant to this discussion; https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/06/28/monte-sereno-murder-case-casts-doubts-on-dna-evidence/

 

[Stacyhs]

This story was published five years ago but it's completely relevant to this discussion; https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/06/28/monte-sereno-murder-case-casts-doubts-on-dna-evidence/

The link is behind a pay wall. Can you please quote relevant parts or summarize for us?

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

Not quite. For DNA to be used to IDENTIFY a particular person there is a minimum number of alleles required. That does not change the fact that there was the DNA of other men on that bra clasp indicating what has always been claimed: it was contaminated. Either that or those other men directly touched that bra clasp.

NO ONE is claiming it was not Raffaele's DNA so stop harping on that as if you're making some relevant point. You're not. It's HOW it got there that was in dispute. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

Here's a news flash for ya: the Supreme Court and most forensic scientists disagree with you about it being "a clear piece of hard evidence".

 

[NotEvenWrong]

NO ONE is claiming it was not Raffaele's DNA so stop harping on that as if you're making some relevant point. You're not. It's HOW it got there that was in dispute. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

Vixen is just strawmanning here and has been for 12 years. She can't address the actual argument (it was transferred indirectly due to poor evidence collection procedures; proven by actual video evidence), so she makes up an entirely different argument that no one is saying and spends 10+ turbo posts spouting nonsense.

But it's Vixen so hey

 

[LondonJohn]

At this point may I make the (extremely valid) comparison that in late 2019 there as STILL people arguing vehemently, complete with the tools of pseudoscience, misunderstood science, sheer ignorance, and intellectual dishonesty (chiefly in the areas of gigantic confirmation bias and misrepresentation), that the Moon landings were faked. And that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster really exist. And that the 9/11 atrocities were conducted with the assistance and complicity of the US Government.

And in late 2019, there are STILL people arguing vehemently, complete with the tools of pseudoscience, misunderstood science, sheer ignorance, and intellectual dishonesty (chiefly in the areas of gigantic confirmation bias and misrepresentation), that there's abundant reliable, credible evidence to prove that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher.



Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose....................

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

Your need to resort to childish hyperbole and false accusations as seen in the last two paragraphs does not make your argument stronger. It merely reveals your own ignorance and desperation.

Let's take a look at what Prof. Gill actually said regarding the DNA on the clasp:

Video evidence demonstrated that the officers did not follow proper procedures with respect to the handling of this item, e.g., they used non-sterile gloves, did not change gloves after touching a surface or item, passed the clasp around, and dropped it on the floor. The failure to adopt these measures was significant because Sollecito had frequented the apartment and had attempted to open the door to Kercher’s bedroom prior to the discovery of her body on November 2nd, 2007. This could have been a source of contamination. There was no attempt made to take samples from the outer door handle. Gloves have been shown to be excellent intermediary substrates to transfer low levels of DNA from one object to another

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.

In light of the 46-day delay in collecting the clasp, the presence of profiles of other individuals in the sample (as discussed in the next section), and the failure to follow basic standard protocols for the collection and storage of the clasp, the evidence was irreversibly compromised. 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.

https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext#sec0080

Vixen, you appear to consider yourself to be more knowledgeable about DNA and contamination than Prof. Gill. On what exactly do you base that? Is it your years of academic training in forensics? Is it your years of actual hands on experience? Is it your various peer-reviewed articles?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Your need to resort to childish hyperbole and false accusations as seen in the last two paragraphs does not make your argument stronger. It merely reveals your own ignorance and desperation.

Let's take a look at what Prof. Gill actually said regarding the DNA on the clasp:






https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext#sec0080

Vixen, you appear to consider yourself to be more knowledgeable about DNA and contamination than Prof. Gill. On what exactly do you base that? Is it your years of academic training in forensics? Is it your years of actual hands on experience? Is it your various peer-reviewed articles?

She's an expert in the physics of ketchup transfer?

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen is just strawmanning here and has been for 12 years. She can't address the actual argument (it was transferred indirectly due to poor evidence collection procedures; proven by actual video evidence), so she makes up an entirely different argument that no one is saying and spends 10+ turbo posts spouting nonsense. But it's Vixen so hey

True dat. But what I cannot understand is why she would say we have claimed things we haven't when our posts disproving them are there for all to see. It doesn't take much common sense or intelligence to understand that is a foolish tactic. I can only assume she thinks that repeating a lie somehow makes it true.

 

[Stacyhs]

She's an expert in the physics of ketchup transfer?

Yes. She has a doctorate in Ketchup Management from Heinz University.

 

[TruthCalls]

The link is behind a pay wall. Can you please quote relevant parts or summarize for us?

From the article...

"In the pivotal case, Anderson was arrested on murder charges after his DNA was found under the fingernail of Silicon Valley millionaire Ravi Kumra, who suffocated after thieves bound him during a 2012 home-invasion robbery at his gated Monte Sereno estate.

Despite the DNA, nagging concerns about the case persisted. The prosecution saw connections to support the DNA link — that Anderson had a residential burglary conviction on a criminal rap sheet composed otherwise of nonviolent minor crimes such as being drunk in public, and he had spent time in the same jail dorm with a member of one of the gangs tied to the Kumra killing. But that gang member wasn’t implicated in the murder. And while the others accused in the homicide belong to some of Oakland’s most violent home-invasion gangs, Anderson didn’t seem mentally capable of organized crime. He suffered a brain injury from being hit by a truck and could not even recall his whereabouts that November night.

Kulick pursued every avenue to prove Anderson had nothing to do with the crime, eventually discovering medical records that show on the night Kumra died, Anderson was at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, where he had been taken by ambulance after passing out drunk in downtown San Jose.

His DNA turned up at the murder scene only because paramedics inadvertently transferred it there, via a simple oxygen-monitoring probe they’d clipped first onto his finger and then onto the dead man’s. Prosecutors dropped the charges after examining a dossier Kulick put together, interviewing the paramedics and hospital personnel, and reviewing videotape of the crime scene to make sure the paramedics had really treated both men. Anderson walked out of jail five months later."

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Yes. She has a doctorate in Ketchup Management from Heinz University.

Vixen's Ph.D. thesis on the dynamics of ketchup transfer, applied to forensic genetics:

https://i.imgur.com/y56WI.gif

 

[Vixen]

Your need to resort to childish hyperbole and false accusations as seen in the last two paragraphs does not make your argument stronger. It merely reveals your own ignorance and desperation.

Let's take a look at what Prof. Gill actually said regarding the DNA on the clasp:






https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/fulltext#sec0080

Vixen, you appear to consider yourself to be more knowledgeable about DNA and contamination than Prof. Gill. On what exactly do you base that? Is it your years of academic training in forensics? Is it your years of actual hands on experience? Is it your various peer-reviewed articles?

Gill never saw the evidence first hand. He is merely riding on the back of the crooked Conti & Vecchiotti, who didn't even have a fridge thermometer in their labs, bodies piled high in the corridors and Veccchiotti fined €150K for refusing to test the DNA of a murderer for nine years.

 

[Stacyhs]

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).

Wow. Unbelievable. The depth of your denial runs very deep. Just when I think you can't make a more absurd claim, you do.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.

(G. Orwell, 1984

Don't believe what you're reading or seeing

(D. Trump, July 24, 2018)

Marasca-Bruno MR:

The clasp was perhaps trodden on or, in any case, moved (such that it was found on the floor in a different position from where it had initially been noticed). Not only this, but the photographic documentation produced by Sollecito’s defence demonstrates that, at the time of the collection, the clasp was passed from hand to hand by the agents, who in addition were wearing dirty latex gloves.”

But I forgot: M and B were 'bent' and Mafia and Masons controlled.

 

[TruthCalls]

Gill never saw the evidence first hand. He is merely riding on the back of the crooked Conti & Vecchiotti, who didn't even have a fridge thermometer in their labs, bodies piled high in the corridors and Veccchiotti fined €150K for refusing to test the DNA of a murderer for nine years.

Are you and Harry Rag/The Machine related? I mean, first we have Harry calling Gil and Hampikian "hoaxers" and now you calling Conti and Vecchiotti crooked.

I'm curious, did either of you ever hear of an independent expert who didn't support Stefanoni's work and NOT call them something derogatory? And, along those lines, should you ever find an independent expert who did support her work, would you ever say anything about them other than showering them with praise?

 

[Stacyhs]

From the article...

"In the pivotal case, Anderson was arrested on murder charges after his DNA was found under the fingernail of Silicon Valley millionaire Ravi Kumra, who suffocated after thieves bound him during a 2012 home-invasion robbery at his gated Monte Sereno estate.

Despite the DNA, nagging concerns about the case persisted. The prosecution saw connections to support the DNA link — that Anderson had a residential burglary conviction on a criminal rap sheet composed otherwise of nonviolent minor crimes such as being drunk in public, and he had spent time in the same jail dorm with a member of one of the gangs tied to the Kumra killing. But that gang member wasn’t implicated in the murder. And while the others accused in the homicide belong to some of Oakland’s most violent home-invasion gangs, Anderson didn’t seem mentally capable of organized crime. He suffered a brain injury from being hit by a truck and could not even recall his whereabouts that November night.

Kulick pursued every avenue to prove Anderson had nothing to do with the crime, eventually discovering medical records that show on the night Kumra died, Anderson was at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, where he had been taken by ambulance after passing out drunk in downtown San Jose.

His DNA turned up at the murder scene only because paramedics inadvertently transferred it there, via a simple oxygen-monitoring probe they’d clipped first onto his finger and then onto the dead man’s. Prosecutors dropped the charges after examining a dossier Kulick put together, interviewing the paramedics and hospital personnel, and reviewing videotape of the crime scene to make sure the paramedics had really treated both men. Anderson walked out of jail five months later."

I remember that case.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Gill never saw the evidence first hand. He is merely riding on the back of the crooked Conti & Vecchiotti, who didn't even have a fridge thermometer in their labs, bodies piled high in the corridors and Veccchiotti fined €150K for refusing to test the DNA of a murderer for nine years.

Oh there she is. Back to defend her ketchup transfer theory of forensic genetics. Thank god.

To address your above post Vixen (for at least the 10th time over the years), the point of science, particularly something as rigorous as forensic science, is to document your procedures so that others can review them. You don't have to be in the lab or collect the evidence yourself to understand what happened. That's literally the entire point of protocols and documentation. If you had any experience at all in the scientific method that would be immediately obvious to you. But instead you just regurgitate "facts" you assimilate from your cult and bring back here pretending like you know anything.

 

[TruthCalls]

Gill never saw the evidence first hand. He is merely riding on the back of the crooked Conti & Vecchiotti, who didn't even have a fridge thermometer in their labs, bodies piled high in the corridors and Veccchiotti fined €150K for refusing to test the DNA of a murderer for nine years.

Actually, Gil was referring to the technical data contained within court records, video and photographic records of the collection of evidence, documentation on storage and subsequent destruction of said evidence, along with the results of various documented and peer reviewed studies on DNA transfer to write his conclusions. But I suppose denigrating experts unrelated to the expert who wrote the paper being discussed is easier than actually trying to refute his conclusions.