The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Vixen]

Vixen, #3551

You mean this?


(Bruno Marasca MR)

Maraca-Bruno, Bongiorno and yourself are totally ignorant about the uniqueness of each individual's DNA (or alternatively, more likely just BENT).

No crime scene is sterile, especially not a gory murder scene.

Yet DNA evidence is hard, cold, scientific, objective and neutral.

It shows Sollecito's full DNA profile with high RFU's to be ON THE VICTIM'S UNDERWEAR.

'Raff wuz here'.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

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).

Post the exact passage please. With the surrounding context.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Post the exact passage please. With the surrounding context.

The table of contents says that section is titled "Persistence of a DNA Profile Transferred to Fingernails 7 Days Prior to Its Recovery".

It doesn't sound like that section has much to do with secondary/tertiary transfer of DNA. Are you sure you're reading it correctly? Are you sure you've read it at all?

 

[Bill Williams]

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

It's hard to replicate the world that Vixen either lives in, or wishes existed.

In her world, trials happen leaving such an incomplete record, that later third-party experts have no record to consult, so as to have no basis to form an expert opinion as to the trial's legitimacy.

Unless someone can explain it to me otherwise, that seems to be the basis for Vixen claiming that unless the likes of Dr. Peter Gill had directly participated in the formal judicial proceedings, that Gill is therefore to be disqualified as someone offering a meaningful opinion.

I guess secret trials are Vixen's preference. Although I could be wrong. Forgive me for connecting the dots this way.

I for one hope that a trial which deals with a horrible murder, will be a transparent one, so that at the very least the victim's loved-ones can be assured the right people go to jail. Indeed, that is the first live comment I had ever heard from one of the Kerchers - in Oct 2011 at the family press conference following the, then, provisional acquittals, Lyle Kercher confessed to the cameras that it was confusing and troubling to the family that, "The courts would first convict, and then acquit."

He then went on and said, "Of course, we don't want to see the wrong people held to account for this." But fast forward to 2014 when AK/RS were re-provisionally convicted, then to 2015 when the pair were definitively and finally acquitted.

You'd want the family, at least, to be able to themselves go back over the transparent record of what had just transpired and go to experts of their own choosing, asking, "Does any of this make sense to you?"

So far, no one knows if the family have done that, nor (in the end) is it any of our business.

In the meantime, the fact that there exists no forensic-DNA expert in the world who supports Stefanoni's original forensic conclusions - and which all of whom debunks her work for specific, verifiable reasons - should mean something.

What it means is that despite its faults, the Italian legal system DOES leave a whole truckload of documents in the wake of even the worst judicial decisions, containing the most bizarre of judicially rendered "facts". The Italian system, despite its faults, is transparent.

To the point where one can only say, "What on earth are you talking about?" to Vixen when her rhetorical coup de grâce is, "Well, Dr. Gill never testified at trial, nor saw the original evidence."

If not, that is not a criticism of Dr. Gill. Vixen, in essence, is arguing that the Italian legal system is held in secret. Speaking only for me, that's not a system I would trust.

 

[Bill Williams]

Maraca-Bruno, Bongiorno and yourself are totally ignorant about the uniqueness of each individual's DNA (or alternatively, more likely just BENT).

No crime scene is sterile, especially not a gory murder scene.

Yet DNA evidence is hard, cold, scientific, objective and neutral.

It shows Sollecito's full DNA profile with high RFU's to be ON THE VICTIM'S UNDERWEAR.

..... which leaves unexplained how 2 to 4 other male haplotypes ended up on that tiny little clasp. Indeed, as explained to you a million times, if Raff had participated in ripping off a bra, his DNA would not be limited to one hook, co-mingled with the victim's and 2 to 4 other men.

'Raff wuz here'.

I'm going to say this slowly, so that you can read it and comprehend.

No one is denying this. No one. The issue is when, and in which part of the cottage.

And this image (as well as the video Methos posted upthread showing the Scientific Police kicking things around the room!!!!!!!!!!!!) is a huge reason to doubt the forensic conclusions drawn by the Massei court that he'd been in that room at the time of the murder, and believe the conclusions drawn by Conti-Vecchiotti, as well as Dr. Peter Gill.



The issue IS NOT that Raff's DNA was in the room, it's that Raff himself wasn't. All the prosecution's case proved EVEN IF TRUE!!! was that he'd been in another part of the cottage at a later time.

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

It can't be found if the side of the door that Raffaele touched wasn't tested. This really isn't a very difficult concept to understand and I know it's been pointed out numerous times, so what is it about this that you don't understand?

 

[Stacyhs]

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).

I'd like to see the entire quote and the surrounding context of that statement because, frankly, you've misrepresented things before, including what I and others have said. I've tried to obtain it myself but you have to buy the book in order to read the relevant parts. Unless you can do so, I'll toss your claim onto the ever growing mountain of your discarded claims.

Gill et al. also wrote this in 2015:

As pointed out in the introduction, the background for this
study was based on a case (miscarriage of justice of Amanda Knox
and Meredith Kercher) [1] where tertiary transfer with a door
handle as a vector of transfer was a possible explanation of the
presence of a DNA profile on an evidence item2. In this study one occasion of a high quality DNA-profile transferred from the door handle (s1) to the gloves (s2) and further onto the fabric (s3) was observed. There were also instances of a partial profile being transferred. We used a metal door handle in this study but have
observed that less DNA was transferred to metal than to the other
material surfaces, therefore one could expect more successful
transfers if the door handle was of a different material (such as
wood). Nevertheless, we have shown that under the conditions of
transfer described in this study this could be a possible route of
DNA transfer. The effectiveness of gloves as a vector of transfer is
also supported in the recent paper by Szkuta et al. [16].

(Secondary and subsequent DNA transfer during criminal investigation
Ane Elida Fonneløp a,c,*, Thore Egeland a,b, Peter Gill a,c, pg 161)

Therefore we were more
concerned with the question – is it reasonable that secondary or
tertiary transfer may occur via gloves, or is it impossible? Our work
clearly demonstrates the former to be true.

(Ibid, pg 162)

You can keep quoting the one single quote from Gill that appears to support your claim, but WE will not ignore the rest of what Gill and other forensic experts have concluded: the bra clasp cannot be used as a scientifically sound piece of evidence against Sollecito.

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

How could his DNA be found on the door or door handle WHEN THEY WERE NEVER TESTED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Next you'll be claiming that Popovic was in cahoots with Sollecito's family to provide a false alibi. Oh, wait...you already did that.

 

[Vixen]

It can't be found if the side of the door that Raffaele touched wasn't tested. This really isn't a very difficult concept to understand and I know it's been pointed out numerous times, so what is it about this that you don't understand?

Dear, oh dear, oh dear.

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

Quote:

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


This has not been provided when by Gill's own account it should have been. As Nencini pointed out if you want to claim contamination you have to show a feasible route.

You must think the public are idiots if you think they believe for a nanosecond Raff's DNA got there by accident - more rare than 'a meteorite hitting the court'.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

Sure they did. And that is all supported by the evidence of a clean up presented in court by the prosecution. Oh, wait.....

Up all night cleaning and they just somehow overlook cleaning up Amanda's blood on the faucet and 'Raff's' bloody footprint on the rug. Evidence they knew was there because they pointed them out to the police instead of cleaning it up. Up all night and they failed to mop up the visible bloody shoe prints in Kercher's bedroom and going down the hall. But they were protecting Guede! Funny way to protect him, innit? And, of course, they knew they weren't Raffaele's because any fool could see the difference between his shoe sole pattern and Guede's...except the police.

Just what did they use that mop for, Vix? You know, the mop that tested negative for blood.

 

[Vixen]

Sure they did. And that is all supported by the evidence of a clean up presented in court by the prosecution. Oh, wait.....

Up all night cleaning and they just somehow overlook cleaning up Amanda's blood on the faucet and 'Raff's' bloody footprint on the rug. Evidence they knew was there because they pointed them out to the police instead of cleaning it up. Up all night and they failed to mop up the visible bloody shoe prints in Kercher's bedroom and going down the hall. But they were protecting Guede! Funny way to protect him, innit? And, of course, they knew they weren't Raffaele's because any fool could see the difference between his shoe sole pattern and Guede's...except the police.

Just what did they use that mop for, Vix? You know, the mop that tested negative for blood.

They knew Mez had been murdered in a disgusting manner. They just assumed, of course her blood will be here and there. <Shrug>

 

[Stacyhs]

Maraca-Bruno, Bongiorno and yourself are totally ignorant about the uniqueness of each individual's DNA (or alternatively, more likely just BENT).

LOL! Sure, Vix. Sure. You just keep on telling yourself that. And that Stefanoni with her 4 year degree knows more about DNA than all the other forensic experts with their lousy doctorates in forensics.

No crime scene is sterile, especially not a gory murder scene.

Has anyone said it is?

Yet DNA evidence is hard, cold, scientific, objective and neutral.

Yep! When it's collected correctly according to scientific protocols (the bra wasn't) and when the analyses are run according to protocols (which Stefanoni didn't do).

It shows Sollecito's full DNA profile with high RFU's to be ON THE VICTIM'S UNDERWEAR.

Yep...by methods "HIGHLY INDICATIVE OF CONTAMINATION".

'Raff wuz here'.

Yep again....but not in Kercher's bedroom where the murder took place.

Would you like to explain to us all again just how Guede left so much varied forensic evidence behind in that room in several places yet Knox left ZERO and the only indication of RS's presence was on a teeny, tiny bra hook that would have been turned towards Kercher's back and on absolutely ZERO else?

 

[Stacyhs]

Sure they did. And that is all supported by the evidence of a clean up presented in court by the prosecution. Oh, wait.....

Up all night cleaning and they just somehow overlook cleaning up Amanda's blood on the faucet and 'Raff's' bloody footprint on the rug. Evidence they knew was there because they pointed them out to the police instead of cleaning it up. Up all night and they failed to mop up the visible bloody shoe prints in Kercher's bedroom and going down the hall. But they were protecting Guede! Funny way to protect him, innit? And, of course, they knew they weren't Raffaele's because any fool could see the difference between his shoe sole pattern and Guede's...except the police.

Just what did they use that mop for, Vix? You know, the mop that tested negative for blood.

They knew Mez had been murdered in a disgusting manner. They just assumed, of course her blood will be here and there. <Shrug>

I'm really worried about you, Vix, if you think that addresses any of my questions/points in any conceivable way.

They assumed Kercher's blood would be here and there so they failed to clean up visible shoe prints in that blood which could be used to identify the killer (and did), to wipe up Knox's blood since she knew she'd been "bleeding profusely" according to you (she probably knew nothing about DNA, right?), or to wash or get rid of the bath mat Raff knew he'd stepped on in blood (they were either trying to put one over on the police or didn't know about footprint analysis, right?). Stop embarrassing yourself with these repeated attempts to justify your illogical and irrational reasoning.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Post the exact passage please. With the surrounding context.

The table of contents says that section is titled "Persistence of a DNA Profile Transferred to Fingernails 7 Days Prior to Its Recovery".

It doesn't sound like that section has much to do with secondary/tertiary transfer of DNA. Are you sure you're reading it correctly? Are you sure you've read it at all?

Vixen where did you go?

Hi Vixen,
Since you have the book right in front of you and you are currently quoting passages, could you quote and provide the surrounding context for your claim that Peter Gill said secondary transfer is impossible after 24 hours? This should be super straight forward.

I do find it odd that the section in question seems to have nothing to do with secondary/tertiary transfer. And I also find it odd that if Peter Gill made that claim, he is completely incorrect, as anyone with any experience working with DNA will tell you.

However, since you have proven to be a trustworthy poster in the past (and not a pathological liar), I am sure you can quite easily come up with the exact passage and post it here.

Could you provide the passage Vixen? Thanks.

 

[Bill Williams]

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

They didn't.

 

[Stacyhs]

Dear, oh dear, oh dear.

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

Quote:

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


This has not been provided when by Gill's own account it should have been. As Nencini pointed out if you want to claim contamination you have to show a feasible route.

I do believe the court was provided the ways in which the contamination could have occurred when they showed the video of the police traipsing from room to room without changing their shoe covers, kicking evidence around, not changing their gloves between touching various objects with them, not using tweezers to collect the evidence, and showing them dropping the bra clasp onto the ground before then handing it around to each other after finding it 6 weeks later across the room from its original position with no explanation of how it got there. Let's see...what else...oh, yes...pointing out that during that 6 weeks, several people had entered the crime scene with no video recording of it. But what we could see in the videos taken on Nov 2/3 and Dec 28 was that the entire apartment had been turned upside down in those intervening weeks.

You must think the public are idiots if you think they believe for a nanosecond Raff's DNA got there by accident - more rare than 'a meteorite hitting the court'.

I do think a lot of the public are idiots. It's one explanation for Trump's continuing popularity within the GOP and the posters over on TJMK. I mean really, do they think anyone gives a damn about their articles anymore or that they're preaching to anyone else but themselves?

Too bad for you that the Supreme Court found that there was NO evidence of Knox OR Sollecito in the murder room so they must have accepted that the bra DNA was contamination. Suck it up.

 

[Stacyhs]

Hi Vixen,
Since you have the book right in front of you and you are currently quoting passages, could you quote and provide the surrounding context for your claim that Peter Gill said secondary transfer is impossible after 24 hours? This should be super straight forward.

I do find it odd that the section in question seems to have nothing to do with secondary/tertiary transfer. And I also find it odd that if Peter Gill made that claim, he is completely incorrect, as anyone with any experience working with DNA will tell you.

However, since you have proven to be a trustworthy poster in the past (and not a pathological liar), I am sure you can quite easily come up with the exact passage and post it here.

Could you provide the passage Vixen? Thanks.

It's not like Vixen just ignores everything else that Gill has to say on the DNA evidence on the bra and knife even though I provided several quotes from him earlier. Is it?

 

[Stacyhs]

They didn't.

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

Darn it, Bill! Stop believing you lying eyes! Clearly that's been photoshopped or that finger touching the hook is a speck on the camera lens!

 

[Methos]

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.

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...

Straight to point three... ?
What about the first two?
Is it:

OK, I stand corrected.

for those two?

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.

Looks like you got the "Veccchiotti fined €150K for refusing to test the DNA of a murderer for nine years" from the Wikipedia entry on the "Delitto dell'Olgiata"
from the part headlined: "Controversie:"

Il Tribunale civile di Roma con sentenza del 21.4.2014 ha condannato in primo grado i consulenti tecnici d'ufficio Pascali Vicenzo Lorenzo, Arbarello Paolo e Vecchiotti Carla per negligenze nell'espletamento degli esami dei reperti relativi l'omicidio della contessa, liquidando un risarcimento complessivo di oltre euro 150 mila attribuito, su richiesta dei prossimi congiunti della contessa, alla Fondazione Alberica Filo della Torre al fine di essere impiegato in attività benefiche

Last time I looked at that case, the information was that Vecchiotti, Arbarello and Pascali (bell ringing here?, probably not...) were first instance faulted for not finding DNA evidence on pieces of evidence they weren't given to test...
...a first instance "conviction", if you want it to call that (civil case...), that means nothing and most likely has "died because of the statute of limitations" by now...

...unless, of course you have some further information... If that's so, I'm all ears... But I'm not holding my breath...

 

[Stacyhs]

Straight to point three... ?
What about the first two?
Is it:
for those two?



Looks like you got the "Veccchiotti fined €150K for refusing to test the DNA of a murderer for nine years" from the Wikipedia entry on the "Delitto dell'Olgiata"
from the part headlined: "Controversie:"

Last time I looked at that case, the information was that Vecchiotti, Arbarello and Pascali (bell ringing here?, probably not...) were first instance faulted for not finding DNA evidence on pieces of evidence they weren't given to test...
...a first instance "conviction", if you want it to call that (civil case...), that means nothing and most likely has "died because of the statute of limitations" by now...

...unless, of course you have some further information... If that's so, I'm all ears... But I'm not holding my breath...

I'd love to know if that was appealed and, if so, what the outcome was.

 

[Methos]

I'd love to know if that was appealed and, if so, what the outcome was.

Let me guess: it was and died at second instance long ago because of the statute of limitations...
But, well, a certain little fox might enlight us on that matter... (not likely )