• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pro-knox nutter is a funny term considering it describes people who don't think a standing national court verdict was rigged by the mafia.

< ..... sinister deletia .....>​
But remember, we're the nutters :D

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Vixen is simply retaliating for being referred to as a guilter-nutter.

Once again, lurkers can decide for themselves who the nutters are.

Guilter-nutters think that the exonerations came about from a Mafia-inspired, Mason-led, American-media funded conspiracy to corrupt the highest court in Italy.

Innocentisi-"nutters" think that the two lower-court provisional convictions, as well as the 2013 ISC quashing of the Hellmann acquittal, was the result of a system caught in the transition between Inquisatorial vs. Adversarial, as well as good old-fashioned bad rulings.

Innocentisi-"nutters" have asked for evidence, and have consistently refused to bow to "judicial facts", meaning that we don't believe things just because a court said it was so....

....... and then turn around and call a court "bent" simply on the basis that it ruled about something else we don't agree with.

I could go on, you could add more. But on the issue of who's the nutter here, I'll leave it to the lurkers to decide.
 
Last edited:
Bill, you forgot to add that all the forensic experts who have criticized Stefanoni's findings are dishonest and have prostituted themselves just to get their names out there. Prof. Gill really needed that publicity because he had no existing career or reputation.
 
Bill, you forgot to add that all the forensic experts who have criticized Stefanoni's findings are dishonest and have prostituted themselves just to get their names out there. Prof. Gill really needed that publicity because he had no existing career or reputation.

True.
 
First Higlight:
Berti Barni report page 7...

second Highlight: This one has been dealt with on IA/IIP some time ago...

You might want to explain what "Veccchiotti fined €150K for refusing to test the DNA of a murderer for nine years" is supposed to mean... :p

It's interesting to compare the well-detailed report of the DNA profile analysis of Trace I from the blade of the knife, by Berti and Barni, doctors (Ph.D. level) and officers (Major-General and Captain, respectively) of the Carabinieri (military police), with the sorely defective report of the DNA profile analyses provided by Stefanoni, the technician (B.S. level) and member of the Scientific Police within the Polizia di Stato (State Police).

In their report on Trace I, Berti and Barni provide an 85-page thorough analysis of it as Low-Template (aka Low Copy Number) DNA sample, explaining the difficulties involved with LT-DNA samples, providing relevant data and running duplicates in conformance with international standards. In contrast, Stefanoni provided no such information and did not run duplicates on the LT-DNA sample she claimed to have found on the knife blade.

Here's a Google translation of the conclusions on page 85 of the Berti-Barni report:

5. ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSIZE COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORENCE

In the light of the analyzes carried out and the evaluations extensively expressed in the report, it is possible to answer the questions put to the experts in the following way:

1. The sample I deriving from trace I taken from Rep. 36 (knife) by the experts of the Assize Court of Appeal of Perugia, Profs. Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti, was found in a fridge-freezer in the Laboratory of Forensic Genetics of the Department of Legal Medicine and Insurance of the University of Rome La Sapienza.

2. The established conditions of conservation of the sample, despite not having direct evidence of what happened in the period prior to the expert operations, are considered to be in accordance with the provisions for this type of biological samples (DNA extracts).

3. The genetic analyzes carried out on sample I have demonstrated the presence of an extremely small quantity of genetic material deriving from the contribution of one or more female subjects which led to retaining the sample in analysis in complex analytical conditions (Low-Template DNA or Low Copy Number).
4. The genetic typing procedure carried out in duplicate on sample I allowed to obtain as many genetic profiles, in conditions of LT DNA (probable stochastic phenomena) and of genetic mixture (presence, in different STRs loci, of more than two alleles), largely overlapping each other and, overall, suitable for comparisons.

5. For each subject indicated in the survey, a comparison was made with the results obtained from sample I applying the biological model and the statistical interpretation model, in accordance with the provisions of the most rigorous and updated interpretative protocols drawn from the international scientific literature.
6. The outcome of this comparison has made it possible to exclude the hypothesis that Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, Rudy Hermann Guede and Raffaele Sollecito's genetic material is present in track I and that, therefore, these subjects may have contributed, with their own biological material, on track I.

7. The overall evaluation of the interpretative results put in place makes it possible to support in an extremely significant way the hypothesis that Amanda Marie Knox's genetic material is present in track I, and that, therefore, Amanda Marie Knox contributed, with her own biological material , on track I.
 
Last edited:
First Higlight:
Berti Barni report page 7...

second Highlight: This one has been dealt with on IA/IIP some time ago...

You might want to explain what "Veccchiotti fined €150K for refusing to test the DNA of a murderer for nine years" is supposed to mean... :p

In addition, we see that the publications of Dr. Gill, who with other true experts in DNA profile analysis have helped to establish the international standards for forensic DNA profile analysis, were repeatedly referenced by Berti and Barni, for example in the following Google translation of pages 81 and 82 of the Berti - Barni report. Thus, the guilters' absurd defamations of Dr. Gill and his work, and of other well-recognized DNA profile experts, are contradicted by the use of his work by the Carabinieri's DNA experts in their analyses of sample I.

The comparative analysis between the alleles found in the genetic comparison profile of AMK and the genetic profiles of the trace I allowed to highlight numerous concordances. In fact, with the exception of only three alleles (allele 10 on locus D16S539, allele 12 on locus D8S1179 and allele 17 on locus D18S51) of AMK not observed in one of the two typing replicas of trace I we find a full concordance between alleles of the genetic profile of AMK and alleles of the genetic consensus and composite profile of trace I.

Given that:

The comparative analysis of the alleles found in the genetic profile of comparison of AMK and the genetic profiles of the trace allowed to highlight numerous concordances. In fact, with the exception of only three alleles (allele 10 on locus D16S539, allele 12 on locus D8S1179 and allele 17 on locus D18S51) of AMK not observed in one of the two typing replicas of trace I we find a full concordance between alleles of the genetic profile of AMK and the alleles of the genetic consensus and composite profile of trace I.

Given that:

- trace I appears in LT DNA conditions and, therefore, affected by probable stochastic phenomena (mainly phenomena of drop-in and drop-out) and, therefore, to be evaluated with extreme caution, in accordance with international guidelines (Gill et al. 2006);

- Recommendation 9 of the ISFG guidelines on the interpretation of genetic mixtures (Gill et al. 2006) suggests that in the case of LT DNA traces the drop-out and drop-in events should be taken into consideration and evaluated (“In relation to low copy number [omissis] . In addition allelic drop-out and allelic drop-in (contamination) should be taken into consideration of any assessment ”);

- the three discordant members (three alleles not found reproducibly in the genetic profiles of trace I) on the D16S539, D8S1179, D18S51 loci (Figure 20) that emerge by applying the consensus method can reasonably be due to similarly allelic drop-out events on one of the two reactions amplification;

- the discrepancies found on loci D16S539, D8S1179, D18S51, to be considered likely events of allelic loss (drop-out), were in any case subjected to the biostatistic evaluation with the probabilistic interpretation method already described (paragraph 3.4.2 point b.), in agreement to the most recent ISFG guidelines (Gill et al. 2012), and whose results are discussed in the following paragraph;

- however, the composite method provides evidence of the presence of the three aforementioned alleles (allele 10 on locus D16S539, allele 12 on locus D8S1179, and allele 17 on locus D18S51);

these evidences indicate, with reasonable certainty, that the genetic profile of Amanda Marie Knox is present, in a consolidated manner, in track I and that, therefore, Amanda Marie Knox contributed, with her own biological fluids, to trace I. The remaining allelic components present in several STRs loci, not attributable to AMK, such as to suggest a genetic mixing condition, may have originated from a limited contribution of a second subject and / or from drop-in phenomena. These allelic signals are, overall, qualitatively and quantitatively unsuitable for the personal identification of an additional individual and in any case do not find homogeneous correspondence with any of the genetic profiles of the other subjects of comparison (MSCK {Kercher}, RHG {Guede}, RS {Sollecito}).
 
It wouldn't be so bad IMO if Mignini were an idiot.

Rather, I believe him to be a cunning, malevolent operator who knows (or perhaps knew....) exactly how to use all the tricks, cheats and shortcomings available to him within the Italian criminal justice system, in order to get the results he desires - i.e. convictions, power and patronage. And all while presenting his public persona of a scrupulously fair, honest, religious, urbane man whose only concern is serving the people.

Well, luckily for the interests of justice, it is the courts who determine guilt or innocence, not the police or the prosecutor.
 
And Rinaldi never saw the bath mat, yet you accept his testimony over Vinci who used the actual bath mat for his measurements.

Why do you need to continue lying about things? You have been proven wrong numerous times regarding your ridiculous claim about "bodies piled high in the corridors". That was in the University MORGUE which isn't in the same building or even the same block as C & V's lab. It had nothing to do with them, yet you repeat that same lie over and over again.

It's also a lie, perpetrated by TJMK and in an article by one Krissy G, that C & V's lab had no refrigerator thermometer. This is from the Nencini MR:



What is actually said is that the C & V lab did not keep a RECORD of the refrigerator temperature, not that they didn't have an actual thermometer.

Then it's reported that, after checking to see that the refrigerator is at the required -20 degree temp (which they do not say it was not), the RIS goes to their own lab and began operations (of testing) the tube. If the temperature had not been the required -20 then the sample would have been deemed useless. That indicates it was at the required temperature. Another TJMK/KrissyG*/Vixen claim proven to be a lie.

*
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C339/



Please provide evidence that the fine was for "refusing to test the DNA of a murderer for nine years".
Vecchiotti was fined by a CIVIL court in a lawsuit.

Here's what Vecchiotti had to say, under oath, about the Olgiata case during her testimony in the Kercher case:



https://translate.google.com/transl...onti-Vecchiotti_Cross-Examination&prev=search


Nowhere does she say she refused to test a sample only that she needed "explicit authorization" to do so.

The only other thing I can find on the Olgiata case and Vecchiotti is on TJMK and, frankly, I take anything they say there with a huge grain of salt due to the lies and negative spin they put on everything. Unless I can see a credible and reputable source (like the actual court findings on the Olgiata/Vecchiotti lawsuit), I would dismiss anything you or they say about the case. After all, it's you and they who made the false claims about the morgue and the C & V lab and thermometer.

Why is it that every single expert or judge who disagrees with you is crooked, bent, under the control of the mafia or Mason? Do you really have no clue as to how ridiculous that is?

You really do talk nonsense. Fingerprint and footprint analysts do not study the original print. A photograph is adequate to construct a graphic of it and measure in exact mathematical and engineering detail the various parameters of the print/s. With a fingerprint, each is unique to each individual. How do forensic scientists determine a fingerprint is compatible to a particular individual? He or she measures a minimum of 18 key points and if they match, it is deemed 'compatible' with an almost zero error rate. Nobody asks to 'see the original fingerprint' in court nor do they demand it be remeasured over and over again. Nor do they claim 'it must have been transferred by a dirty glove' look, there's a speck on the camera lens so that proves it.
 
I do. I've have never disputed that so don't consider my agreement as some kind of victory on your part.



LOL! I laughed so hard at your reasoning, I couldn't type a reply for a full minute. All that supposed physical interaction and is his DNA found on the knife? No. On her jacket? No. On her jeans? No. On her body? No. On the sheet or duvet? No. But whose DNA is found on and in the body, on her purse, on her jacket, on her bra strap? Why...that would be Guede's! Whose bloody shoe prints are found around the body? Sollecito's? No. What about fingerprints? Nope. That would be Guede yet again. Honestly, Vix...your attempt to show Sollecito was involved by listing all the above supposed interaction only supports that Sollecito wasn't involved.



But wait! It was identified as NOT being Sollecito's by Vinci. Not even Massei could decide who it belonged to.



And tested as blood negative by TMB, a standard, much used and popular device to rule out the presence of blood.



You mean the two footprints that were only held to be compatible with Sollecito but devoid of his DNA and never compared to the foot ofm say, Silenzi who always went around to Meredith's apartment for sex?



They also didn't bother to test the outside of MK's door or the handle which were known to have been touched by Sollecito. Great police work there! Nah, the police never touched that door or handle and then went on to touch other things. They were so very good about changing gloves as the video shows!



After a coercive and illegal interrogation.

Did RS ever deny he was up early that morning listening to music? NO. He was never asked. If I get up early to go to the bathroom and then go back to bed and I'm asked when I got up, am I lying because didn't mention getting up to go pee? It was inconsequential to the murder as far as RS was concerned to not worth mentioning.



Oh, I do! Believe me. And when someone lies about things and misrepresents things and twists things beyond recognition, I see her for exactly what she is.



Nonesense. The evidence has shown me otherwise. It's you that refuses to see it.



By contamination as the experts and SC found.


True. That Guede really had a thing for knives. Ask Tramontano and Del Prato.



True. It takes something to transfer it, like gloves, shoes, etc.


The experts and the SC disagree with you. But that's nothing new.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
 
What? You don't find plausible Vixen's explanation that they left it there and pointed it out to the police because they wanted to "put one over" on the police and to show how clever they were? Seems perfectly logical to me.:rolleyes:

Most likely they had no idea there was such a thing as footprint analysis.

Many a burglar has been convicted for stupidly leaving their boot print on a forced door.
 
Present evidence that "pro-Knox nutters" have done this and this isn't just another one of your...ahem...'truth alternatives'. I won't hold my breath.



Only an ignorant moron would think that was the point of a powder transfer demonstration. It's not to show that DNA is in talcum powder, but to demonstrate how transfer occurs. That's why this technique used in schools to demonstrate how germs are transferred and why washing hands is so important.




It's really not a very difficult concept to understand...for most people.

I refer you to a lousy Channel 5 documentary (which quickly sank in obscurity) which tried to demonstrate this very thing, also Conti in the Netflix film tries to claim DNA is spread around 'like dust' every time we shake our hands.

Absolute RUBBISH! Most contagious illnesses such as flu, colds and pneumonia are spread by AIRBORNE germs. In addition, most of these are caused by VIRUSES not germs. Bacteria on a human body is 100% natural and even necessary for good health.

Absolute crap that if you touch someone they transfer their germs to you. NONSENSE. To catch anything from them, you would need a huge amount of transfer, more than your immune system can cope with, as normally your white blood cells will simply see them off, as per usual. Secondly you would need to put the 'germy' part to your mouth or some other point of entry.

This idea you can catch something just by touching someone reminds us of the sheer ignorance surrounding illnesses such as AIDS (a retrovirus) or cancer (cell growth gone wrong).
 
First Higlight:
Berti Barni report page 7...

second Highlight: This one has been dealt with on IA/IIP some time ago...

You might want to explain what "Veccchiotti fined €150K for refusing to test the DNA of a murderer for nine years" is supposed to mean... :p

Some poor sod was denied justice for nine years as Vecchiotti refused to analyse the DNA of the murderer until she was forced to. She is a complete and utter crook.
 
Bill, you forgot to add that all the forensic experts who have criticized Stefanoni's findings are dishonest and have prostituted themselves just to get their names out there. Prof. Gill really needed that publicity because he had no existing career or reputation.

Gill piggybacks on others. He gets his Sollecito/Knox info from proven crook Vecchiotti and their 'intellectually dishonest' [Chieffi, Supreme Court] report.

He claims to be the father of forensic genetics but in fact that honour goes to his colleague Alan Jefferies.

Gill is not much more than a plagiarist cashing in on notorious killers. He is now supporting yet another heinous killer.
 
Well, luckily for the interests of justice, it is the courts who determine guilt or innocence, not the police or the prosecutor.



Indeed. And luckily for the interests of justice, the courts (eventually) correctly determined guilt or innocence in this case.
 
To clear up the lies and misstatements of the guilters, Alec Jeffreys and Peter Gill worked together (and with others) to invent forensic DNA profiling; Alec Jeffreys is generally considered the originator of the concept. Here is the abstract of a first scientific communication of the idea; Gill is the first author.

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/318577a0

Letter
Published: 12 December 1985

Forensic application of DNA ‘fingerprints’
Peter Gill, Alec J. Jeffreys & David J. Werrett

Nature volume 318, pages577–579 (1985)

Abstract

Many highly polymorphic minisatellite loci can be detected simultaneously in the human genome by hybridization to probes consisting of tandem repeats of the ‘core’ sequence1. The resulting DNA fingerprints produced by Southern blot hybridization are comprised of multiple hypervariable DNA fragments, show somatic and germline stability and are completely specific to an individual2,3. We now show that this technique can be used for forensic purposes; DNA of high relative molecular mass (Mr) can be isolated from 4-yr-old bloodstains and semen stains made on cotton cloth and digested to produce DNA fingerprints suitable for individual identification. Further, sperm nuclei can be separated from vaginal cellular debris, obtained from semen-contaminated vaginal swabs, enabling positive identification of the male donor/suspect. It is envisaged that DNA fingerprinting will revolutionize forensic biology particularly with regard to the identification of rape suspects.

References

1 Jeffreys, A. J., Wilson, V. & Thein, S. L. Nature 314, 67–73 (1985).

2 Jeffreys, A. J., Wilson, V. & Thein, S. L. Nature 316, 76–79 (1985).

3 Jeffreys, A. J., Brookfield, J. F. Y. & Semeonoff, R. Nature 317, 818–819 (1985).
 
Last edited:
Gill piggybacks on others. He gets his Sollecito/Knox info from proven crook Vecchiotti and their 'intellectually dishonest' [Chieffi, Supreme Court] report.

He claims to be the father of forensic genetics but in fact that honour goes to his colleague Alan Jefferies.

Gill is not much more than a plagiarist cashing in on notorious killers. He is now supporting yet another heinous killer.

Do you mean Alec Jeffreys?

By the way, any evidence for your other assertions? Seems to me, Gill is on the right side of this case.
 
Do you mean Alec Jeffreys?

By the way, any evidence for your other assertions? Seems to me, Gill is on the right side of this case.



From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Jeffreys:

"DNA profiling

DNA profiling, based on typing individual highly variable minisatellites in the human genome, was also developed by Alec Jeffreys and his team in 1985,[24][25] with the term (DNA fingerprinting) being retained for the initial test that types many minisatellites simultaneously. By focusing on just a few of these highly variable minisatellites, DNA profiling made the system more sensitive, more reproducible and amenable to computer databases. It soon became the standard forensic DNA system used in criminal case work and paternity testing worldwide.

The development of DNA amplification by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) opened up new approaches to forensic DNA testing, allowing automation, greatly increased sensitivity and a move to alternative marker systems. The most commonly used markers are now variable microsatellites, also known as short tandem repeats (STRs), which Jeffreys first exploited in 1990 in the Mengele case.[26] STR profiling was further refined by a team of scientists led by Peter Gill at the Forensic Science Service in the 1990s, allowing the launch of the UK National DNA Database (NDNAD) in 1995...."

1. Peter Gill was a key member of Jeffreys' team that developed the DNA fingerprint test in 1985; that is why Gill was the first author of the letter to Nature (a very well-known science journal published in the UK).

2. Gill has since then made significant contributions, including through leading his own teams of researchers, to advancing DNA forensics. See his CV: http://mastergeneticaforense.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/cv-Gill.pdf

From Gill's CV:

"I joined the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in 1982. I began research into DNA in 1985, collaborating with Sir Alec Jeffreys of Leicester University. In the same year we published the first demonstration of the forensic application of DNA profiling. In 1987 I was given an award under the civil service inventor’s scheme for my discovery of the preferential sperm DNA extraction technique and the development of associated forensic tests. I was employed as Principal Research Scientist at the Forensic Science Service (FSS). This was the highest scientific grade within the FSS. I am Professor of Forensic Genetics and I hold concurrent positions at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and the University of Oslo.

....

Low-template DNA

In relation to ... {DNA forensics identifying in 1993 - 1994 the remains of the family of the Russian czar, killed in 1918}, I was responsible for developing a ‘super-sensitive’ method of DNA profiling that is capable of analysing DNA profiles from a handful of cells. This method was originally known as low-copy-number (LCN) DNA profiling. Now it is known as Low template DNA profiling. New statistical methods and thinking were also developed to facilitate the new methods. I published a book in 2014, “Misleading DNA Evidence” published by Elsevier that describes methods to report ‘trace-DNA’ along with the various pitfalls that are illustrated by recent miscarriages of justice.
....

List of Major achievements:

1)[HILITE}I provided the first demonstration in 1985 that DNA could be extracted from degraded stain material, and that DNA ‘fingerprints’ could be obtained from such material. The results were published in Nature: Gill, P., Jeffreys, A.J. and Werrett, D.J. (1985) Forensic application of DNA 'fingerprints'. Nature, 318, 577-579.[/HILITE]

2)In conjunction with (1) I developed a revolutionary technique to separate sperm DNA from extraneous (female) material. Without this innovation it would have been impossible to analyse material from rape victims. These techniques are still used today.
3)I was closely involved with the first DNA case in the world. I carried out DNA analysis to confirm results provided by Alec Jeffreys. ....

4)I identified the systems (short tandem repeat analysis) that are used today in all national DNA databases throughout the world.

5)I developed the statistical methods used by the national DNA database in order to compare samples (e.g. by development of allelic ladders and associated matching algorithms).

6)I was the first to recognise the importance of STRs and to develop STR multiplexes for forensic purposes in 1993.

{10 additional achievements are listed in the CV}."

Note that in describing his own contributions, Gill properly cites Alec Jeffreys. Gill also states that his initial contribution, in the letter of which he was first author, was demonstrating the extraction of DNA from degraded stain material, and not, as falsely claimed by some guilters, such as apparently by Vixen in post #3533 in this thread, the invention of DNA fingerprinting (profiling) itself.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely bonkers. Are you ignorantly claiming Raff's DNA miraculously formed on the latex glove - like a fruit fly hovering over your sweet food like magic - and LEAPT from the latexed finger onto the exact bend on the bra clasp where the disgusting perpetrator bent it out of shape?

There are no limits to human stupidity.

Finally, something we agree on.

There seem also to be no limits to the use of strawman argumentation. For some reason you think lurkers can't spot strawman when they see it.
 
Some poor sod was denied justice for nine years as Vecchiotti refused to analyse the DNA of the murderer until she was forced to. She is a complete and utter crook.

What I love about these citationless, venomous posts of yours, is that someone else in response actually does provide the proper cite.

And your views are exposed as junk. But you did manage 8 posts in 32 minutes. Quantity over quality I guess.
 
Last edited:
Gill piggybacks on others. He gets his Sollecito/Knox info from proven crook Vecchiotti and their 'intellectually dishonest' [Chieffi, Supreme Court] report.

He claims to be the father of forensic genetics but in fact that honour goes to his colleague Alan Jefferies.

Gill is not much more than a plagiarist cashing in on notorious killers. He is now supporting yet another heinous killer.

It would be good if you could name one, just one forensic-DNA expert who disputes Gill's findings in the Knox/Sollecito case. If all you have is ad hominem and not clinical proof, then that's all anyone needs to know about both you and the case.

My view is that your cite is Harry Rag, and/or TJMK website. But that's just me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom