The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Belz...]

I wonder how many libraries it would take to hold this entire thread in book form.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

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?

No, I think he is claiming that the visibly dirty glove (dirty means it wasn't a fresh, sterile glove Vixen; i.e. it had touched something already) picked up Rafaelle's DNA and indirectly transferred it to the bra clasp when it was picked up (as you can see in the damn photograph).

This route of contamination is explained in explicit detail in the paper I linked yesterday. The paper that you probably already think was funded by the Italian mafia. Because, you know, super crazy and all that.

Your colorfully worded fan-fiction about fruit flies and magic doesn't change facts about how DNA transfer works. That might work on your crazy cult site but not here.

There are no limits to human stupidity.

Well, yes, this is actually true. Relatedly -- do you think DNA transfer is more like ketchup or more like fruit fly magic? I'm legitimately curious which theory you find more scientifically accurate.

 

[Vixen]

No, I think he is claiming that the visibly dirty glove (dirty means it wasn't a fresh, sterile glove Vixen; i.e. it had touched something already) picked up Rafaelle's DNA and indirectly transferred it to the bra clasp when it was picked up (as you can see in the damn photograph).

This route of contamination is explained in explicit detail in the paper I linked yesterday. The paper that you probably already think was funded by the Italian mafia. Because, you know, super crazy and all that.

Your colorfully worded fan-fiction about fruit flies and magic doesn't change facts about how DNA transfer works. That might work on your crazy cult site but not here.



Well, yes, this is actually true. Relatedly -- do you think DNA transfer is more like ketchup or more like fruit fly magic? I'm legitimately curious which theory you find more scientifically accurate.

So, so ignorant.

 

[LondonJohn]

So, so ignorant.

Expand, please....? In what way exactly is it "so, so ignorant"?


Oh and since you're here: ready yet to admit that your claim to have reliable evidence to support the (incorrect) assertion that the Knox family used "$2 million" of PR services was a lie?

 

[Bill Williams]

So, so ignorant.

Why? (Citations please.)

 

[Stacyhs]

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?

Vixen, seriously...if that is what you got out of Bill's post, then all I can say is....

There are no limits to human stupidity.

It's not like there's video of the forensic police handling the bra clasp, touching the hook, dropping it on the ground, picking it up, and then passing it around. Right?

 

[Stacyhs]

Expand, please....? In what way exactly is it "so, so ignorant"?


Oh and since you're here: ready yet to admit that your claim to have reliable evidence to support the (incorrect) assertion that the Knox family used "$2 million" of PR services was a lie?

It's 'so, so ignorant' because you didn't include the mafia/Masons involvement, John. Sheesh.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

Unbelievable. Gill had STEFANONI'S LAB RECORDS so he had exactly the same information as she had. I assume your beloved Balding's opinions are equally as invalid as he had access to exactly the same lab records as Gill?

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.

Vinci still had the rug itself to study whereas Rinaldi did not. You can try and spin it any which way, but that does not change that fact. Besides, you were the one who claimed Gill never seeing the evidence first hand as being somehow detrimental to his analysis. Just what evidence did he not see first hand that would have changed his analysis of the DNA? But you won't answer that question, will you?

You must be truly desperate to continue claiming, or even claiming in the first place, that those gloves were not dirty. It could be "a trick of light, a pixel, a crease, a shadow, graininess of the film" or....it could be that the mafia or the Masons secretly obtained the police video and altered it in order to make the glove look dirty!

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

In other words, you can't counter what I said with any rational arguments so you reply with that nonsense. Par for the course.

 

[Vixen]

Why? (Citations please.)

Just see what Marasca-Bruno say quoting Gill’s theories of ‘secondary’ and ‘tertiary’ transfer of DNA, when Gill himself appears to have overlooked that he himself wrote, that ‘this is highly improbable after 24 hours have passed’.

In addition, Gill also wrote:

:

Recommendation 1: The expert should provide the court with an unbiased list of all possible modes of transfer of DNA evidence (pg 20).”

Misleading DNA Evidence – Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice, Peter Gill, Academic Press.

How many times do you need to be told:

• Sollecito had not been anywhere near the cottage between 3 Nov to 18 Dec 2007, to leave any of his DNA anywhere
• DNA does not move about
• The DNA he placed on the bra clasp stayed on the bra clasp
• It is not possible for the Forensic Team Leader Stefanoni to have tertiarily transferred the DNA onto the bra clasp after six weeks, never mind when even Gill says SECONDARY transfer (from door to glove) is hardly possible after 24 hours.

Sollecito placed his DNA on the bra clasp during the course of the crime and it remained on the bra clasp waiting to be discovered and to incriminate him strongly. Just like Guede's DNA on Meredith's sweater cuffs incriminated Guede.

Oh, can't see you claiming Guede's DNA was similarly contaminated as the items were collected on the same occasion.


But then you know Raff was there, don't you.

His DNA at the murder scene says, 'Raff wuz here'.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, seriously...if that is what you got out of Bill's post, then all I can say is....



It's not like there's video of the forensic police handling the bra clasp, touching the hook, dropping it on the ground, picking it up, and then passing it around. Right?

So, so ignorant.

 

[Vixen]

Unbelievable. Gill had STEFANONI'S LAB RECORDS so he had exactly the same information as she had. I assume your beloved Balding's opinions are equally as invalid as he had access to exactly the same lab records as Gill?




Vinci still had the rug itself to study whereas Rinaldi did not. You can try and spin it any which way, but that does not change that fact. Besides, you were the one who claimed Gill never seeing the evidence first hand as being somehow detrimental to his analysis. Just what evidence did he not see first hand that would have changed his analysis of the DNA? But you won't answer that question, will you?

You must be truly desperate to continue claiming, or even claiming in the first place, that those gloves were not dirty. It could be "a trick of light, a pixel, a crease, a shadow, graininess of the film" or....it could be that the mafia or the Masons secretly obtained the police video and altered it in order to make the glove look dirty!

Gill gets his information second-hand from a pair who were publicly excoriated by a Supreme Court judge and who refused to carry out a test they had been directed to carry out.

As for YOUR claim 'there is a speck of dirt on the glove' you can't know that. It could just as equally have been a speck on the camera lens.

Certainly it is not an image of Raff's DNA.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Just see what Marasca-Bruno say quoting Gill’s theories of ‘secondary’ and ‘tertiary’ transfer of DNA, when Gill himself appears to have overlooked that he himself wrote, that ‘this is highly improbable after 24 hours have passed’.

Can anyone find the source for this Peter Gill quote that Vixen keeps parading around? When I look, I can only find some random ass articles on TJMK mentioning this, written by someone named KrissyG who seems super disturbed. And the writing style makes me want to gouge my eyes out. It's like reading something from a 3rd grader trying to bully a classmate. Not surprisingly, the author in question did not provide any kind of source for the quote.

Vixen clearly isn't going to provide a source (because let's be honest, she completely made it up), so figured I'd ask everyone else.

 

[Stacyhs]

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

Sure, Vix. That's it. But I thought they were such savvy criminals that they cleaned up their foot-and shoe prints? As you said earlier:

As Migini tactfully put it, 'Amanda is very astute'.

They knew how to clean a crime scene, and cunning enough to leave Rudy's incriminating faeces in the toilet. Yet too stupid to realise faeces are not a good source of DNA identification, as bacteria deteriorates the DNA rapidly.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11381414#post11381414

It's really not difficult, Stacy: you simply clean in the obvious places. There were a lot of smeared footprints in Amanda's room, consistent with the pair shuffling around on a soft cloth ( from this the shuffled bathmat story was born).

Forensic police can only test a limited number of places, so which places do they select for their forensic testing?

That's right: exactly the same places the perps cleaned up!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11385547#post11385547

We saw Raff's half footprint on the bathmat and Rudy's one-sided shoe prints in the hall. Obviously, someone cleaned around them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11380912#post11380912

Amanda did spend a lot of time ferrying a mop around, and the washing machine was going, too.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11381531#post11381531

Your earlier claims were that the pair cleaned up their foot-shoe prints but now they didn't know footprint analysis existed? See what happens when your story is illogical to begin with? You have to keep changing it to conform with whatever is your excuse du jour.

Many a burglar has been convicted for stupidly leaving their boot print on a forced door.

But how many burglars point out those boot prints to the police? How many? Do you ever think before you post?

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen, seriously...if that is what you got out of Bill's post, then all I can say is....



It's not like there's video of the forensic police handling the bra clasp, touching the hook, dropping it on the ground, picking it up, and then passing it around. Right?

So, so ignorant.

Once again, this is how you respond when you have no other defense to you claims. It's been your M. O. for years.

Are you telling me that there is no video of the forensic police handling the bra clasp, touching the hook, dropping it on the ground, picking it up, and then passing it around? Are you?

 

[Vixen]

Can anyone find the source for this Peter Gill quote that Vixen keeps parading around? When I look, I can only find some random ass articles on TJMK mentioning this, written by someone named KrissyG who seems super disturbed. And the writing style makes me want to gouge my eyes out. It's like reading something from a 3rd grader trying to bully a classmate. Not surprisingly, the author in question did not provide any kind of source for the quote.

Vixen clearly isn't going to provide a source (because let's be honest, she completely made it up), so figured I'd ask everyone else.

Try reading Peter Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" where he contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77).

So much for your fabulous claim that Stefanoni achieved a TERTIARY transfer from a door from which DNA of Raff was NEVER found onto a latex glove and from the glove it miraculously JUMPED onto the bend in the hook to produce a FULL DNA sample of Raffaele Sollecito, who was last at the cottage over six weeks ago and claimed he had NEVER been in Meredith Kercher's room.

Next you'll be pulling rabbits out of a hat.

 

[Vixen]

Sure, Vix. That's it. But I thought they were such savvy criminals that they cleaned up their foot-and shoe prints? As you said earlier:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11381414#post11381414


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11385547#post11385547



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11380912#post11380912


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11381531#post11381531

Your earlier claims were that the pair cleaned up their foot-shoe prints but now they didn't know footprint analysis existed? See what happens when your story is illogical to begin with? You have to keep changing it to conform with whatever is your excuse du jour.



But how many burglars point out those boot prints to the police? How many? Do you ever think before you post?

They did their best to clean up. Up all night judging by the rough look of them next morning. But Amanda is not the sharpest card in the pack.

 

[Vixen]

Once again, this is how you respond when you have no other defense to you claims. It's been your M. O. for years.

Are you telling me that there is no video of the forensic police handling the bra clasp, touching the hook, dropping it on the ground, picking it up, and then passing it around? Are you?

They could do the hokey-cokey on it but they cannot manufacture anybody's DNA out of thin air.

 

[Stacyhs]

Gill gets his information second-hand from a pair who were publicly excoriated by a Supreme Court judge and who refused to carry out a test they had been directed to carry out.
.

LOL! Gill got his information of Stefanoni's work from her own lab records AND the lab records of C & V. Or do you think that Stefanoni's records and analyses were not included in C & V's report? If so, I suggest you go to the C & V report itself and see that they are:
https://knoxdnareport.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/translation-of-the-conti-vecchiotti-report2.pdf

who refused to carry out a test they had been directed to carry out.

You've never bothered to support your claim with evidence that Vecchiotti refused to analyze the killer's DNA in the Olgiata case. Are you referring to that claim again or is this a new one? If so, I would assume you're talking about the one sample V did not analyze (not refused to analyze) because she thought it was too LCN to do so at the time.

As for YOUR claim 'there is a speck of dirt on the glove' you can't know that. It could just as equally have been a speck on the camera lens.

I never said there was a "speck of dirt on the glove" so don't quote me as saying so. I said that the gloves were dirty. Which they were as evidenced by the police video. But don't believe your lying eyes; Vixen says it could be a speck on the camera lens. But that is disproved because that speck does not appear on any other part of the video, even that taken just a few frames later.

What's the next excuse going to be, Vix? Someone photoshopped that pic of the dirty glove? A Mason or mafia gangster? Maybe on of the defense lawyers?

Certainly it is not an image of Raff's DNA

REALLY? It's not an image of Raff's DNA? REALLY? You mean we can't see DNA with the naked eye? Well, who wudda thunk that?

 

[Stacyhs]

Just see what Marasca-Bruno say quoting Gill’s theories of ‘secondary’ and ‘tertiary’ transfer of DNA,

Vixen, #3551

You mean this?

Regarding the possible contamination of the sample, the appellate judges ignored the photographic materials included in the court records, which clearly demonstrated possible contamination in the way the clasp was treated, being passed from hand to hand by persons wearing dirty latex gloves.”

(Bruno Marasca MR)