• 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 30

Status
Not open for further replies.
TruthCalls said:
Vixen, the following table represents Amanda's DNA profile and how it maps to the DNA extraction performed on sample 165B - the bra clasp.

There are three columns (A, B & C), which represent three different interpretations of the egram from the sample. Col A is what is reported in the RTIGF. Col B is every peak, with no minimum RFU value and Col C is all peaks with an RFU of 50 and above.

For each loci, I compare Amanda's profile to those of the sample as cited in each of the three interpretations. If there is a match, then I highlight the box with either yellow (found in Meredith's profile), red (Sollecito), purple (Guede) or white text on black (unique to Amanda).

As you can see, based on what was reported in the RTIGF, there were no unique allleles from Amanda. Where a minimum of 50 RFU is enforced from the egram (Col C), there are three alleles unique to Amanda. As 50 RFU is the limit Stefanoni adheres to, this is the most incriminating result one can reasonably argue. And I'm sure even Balding would tell you (as he already has) this is NOT evidence of Amanda's profile on the clasp.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1320&pictureid=12295[/qimg]

In case you're confused on how to interpret this...

Consider locus D8S1179 (Amanda profile: 11, 12)

The RTIGF reports 13, 15 & 16 so no alleles match Amanda's profile and so under Col A for this loci the two boxes are not highlighted.

Per the egram, 12,13,14,15 & 16 are all above 50 RFU and so under Col C for this loci the box with 12 is highlighted (allele 12 is in Amanda's profile and this interpretation of the egram), 11 is not.

If either 11 or 12 was found in Meredith, Raffaele or Guede's profile then those boxes would be highlighted with the correct color. In this case, 12 is not in anyone else's profile so it's unique to Amanda and is highlighted as white on black.

There is far more information to consider than just this. For example, in the Vinci report, regarding this particular locus he writes;

"D8S1179: a profile 13, 15, 16 was attributed to the trace. Alleles 12 and 14 (RFU> 50) were omitted. The 12 allele having an area of 689 (less than 15% of the area of ​​the neighboring main peak (6239) could have been considered a stutter of the main allele 13 (the percentage of stutter for these small ones varies from 3 to 8% as reported by the manufacturer). This eventuality can not excluded but, in the presence of no more DNA present in the mixture at a concentration of about one tenth compared to the component greater, a stutter band is absolutely indistinguishable from a true allele that should have been attributed. For the 14 allele of the assessment (469 ie at least 45% of the peak area 15 next , (1171)) shows that this peak is not considered in the analysis has a higher percentage of 15% (if we consider the definition stutter band) and therefore must be considered in all respects effects a definable allele and attributable in the mixture."

So even though in the more liberal interpretation of the egram we see allele 12 appear, based on it's relative low RFU, it's reasonable to consider this stutter.

I can't wait to see The Machine's presentation. That should really push his creative writing skills to the limit.
Click to expand...

TruthCalls, thanks for this excellent presentation.

Another point to be made is that if even one locus of the sample DNA profile does not have an allele matching the DNA of a suspect, then one must conclude that the DNA of the sample does NOT contain any contribution from that suspect. If the sample does not contain any contribution from that suspect, that sample does not constitute evidence against that suspect.

Under Interpretation B, accepting all apparent peaks with no minimum RFU threshold applied, alleles of Knox's DNA are not present at loci D7S820, D13S317, D195433, and VWA. Therefore, Knox's DNA does not contribute to sample 165B, and sample 165B cannot be considered evidence against Knox.

Furthermore, because of the improper methods of collection, which did not protect against contamination, used for Sample 165B, that sample cannot, under Italian law, be considered as evidence against anyone accused of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher. This was the conclusion of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in their final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito.
 
Which to believe? An uncited 'experiment' using play doh and crayons or an analogy presented by a government scientific site, Vecchiotti's testimony and the chart TC presented? Such a conundrum!

I guess I'll have to wait for The Machine's article. He has such a great history of presenting unbiased, science based, and accurate articles. For example, his latest opening statement in his praise of "True Crime Reporter", Roberta Glass:

Increasingly common these days is for pro-truth, pro-victim and pro-justice sources to stake out the high ground.
Click to expand...
http://truejustice.org/ee/

Okay, okay....try and get control of yourselves. I had the same reaction after reading it, too: initial disbelief at what I was reading followed by uncontrollable laughter.

I also noticed that the anniversary of Meredith's death was finally mentioned on TJMK's Front Page. It states it was posted at by KrissyG on 11/01 at 01:00 AM. That is a lie. As I mentioned on Nov. 1:

So has TJMK as they have posted nothing at all regarding the 12th anniversary of Meredith's death as of 4:55 PM New York time or 10:55 PM Finnish time.
But it's 'all for Meredith', right?
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12878073#post12878073

I know it was not there as of the times I mentioned above so there is no way it was posted at 1:00 AM on Nov. 1. Looks to me like someone is playing fast and loose with the truth.


ETA: All KrissyG did was cut and paste her 'memorial' from 2015. Looks like she threw it up in a hurry. Hmmmmmm...
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Which to believe? An uncited 'experiment' using play doh and crayons or an analogy presented by a government scientific site, Vecchiotti's testimony and the chart TC presented? Such a conundrum!

I guess I'll have to wait for The Machine's article. He has such a great history of presenting unbiased, science based, and accurate articles. For example, his latest opening statement in his praise of "True Crime Reporter", Roberta Glass:


http://truejustice.org/ee/

Okay, okay....try and get control of yourselves. I had the same reaction after reading it, too: initial disbelief at what I was reading followed by uncontrollable laughter.
Click to expand...



Prompted by this, I just had my bi-monthly gander at that cess-pit of an echo chamber. And "The Machine" came up with this absolute zinger, aimed at (among others) pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators on this case:

"Apart from being mainly emotionally responsive and lacking critical thinking skills, they tend to be arrogant, opinionated and completely inflexible. Once their minds are made up, they flatly refuse to consider the possibility they might be wrong even when they are presented with clear and compelling evidence that they are."

The combination of giant irony and a total lack of self-awareness here is quite something to behold :p :rolleyes:



I also noticed that the anniversary of Meredith's death was finally mentioned on TJMK's Front Page. It states it was posted at by KrissyG on 11/01 at 01:00 AM. That is a lie. As I mentioned on Nov. 1:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12878073#post12878073

I know it was not there as of the times I mentioned above so there is no way it was posted at 1:00 AM on Nov. 1. Looks to me like someone is playing fast and loose with the truth.


ETA: All KrissyG did was cut and paste her 'memorial' from 2015. Looks like she threw it up in a hurry. Hmmmmmm...
Click to expand...


I wonder if *one* of the pro-guilt posters on this forum scurried over to instruct "Krissy G" to hastily attempt to seize back the moral high ground.... ;)
 
"Apart from being mainly emotionally responsive and lacking critical thinking skills, they tend to be arrogant, opinionated and completely inflexible. Once their minds are made up, they flatly refuse to consider the possibility they might be wrong even when they are presented with clear and compelling evidence that they are."

HOLY PROJECTION, BATMAN! I damn near spewed my drink clear across the room when I read that.

As for the memorial to Meredith suddenly appearing on TJMK at 1:00 AM Nov. 1, I do have to wonder exactly where in the world KrissyG was to post that when it was 4:55 PM New York time and 10:55 PM Finnish time...when it was NOT on TJMK Front Page.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Prompted by this, I just had my bi-monthly gander at that cess-pit of an echo chamber. And "The Machine" came up with this absolute zinger, aimed at (among others) pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators on this case:

"Apart from being mainly emotionally responsive and lacking critical thinking skills, they tend to be arrogant, opinionated and completely inflexible. Once their minds are made up, they flatly refuse to consider the possibility they might be wrong even when they are presented with clear and compelling evidence that they are."

The combination of giant irony and a total lack of self-awareness here is quite something to behold :p :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

In the past 2-3 weeks Harry has been called out for lying about Stefanoni testifying to mixed blood samples and later, for Amanda's DNA being on the clasp. In both cases, when faced with the FACTS that proved him wrong, he suddenly disappeared from the discussion. That he could write what's quoted above in light of his recent track record is truly the epitome of hypocrisy.
 
TruthCalls said:
In the past 2-3 weeks Harry has been called out for lying about Stefanoni testifying to mixed blood samples and later, for Amanda's DNA being on the clasp. In both cases, when faced with the FACTS that proved him wrong, he suddenly disappeared from the discussion. That he could write what's quoted above in light of his recent track record is truly the epitome of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Harry Rag is very vocal in attacking Amanda for lying but then lies himself which Vixen also does. I have asked this question repeatedly with no answer from Vixen. If the case against Amanda was such a slam dunk and the evidence was strong why do Harry Rag, Vixen and other PGP need to lie to argue their case. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, why do PGP need to invent facts such as Amanda 's DNA being on the clasp and spend so much effort defending falsehoods even after being clearly shown they are falsehoods.
 
Numbers said:
TruthCalls, thanks for this excellent presentation.

Another point to be made is that if even one locus of the sample DNA profile does not have an allele matching the DNA of a suspect, then one must conclude that the DNA of the sample does NOT contain any contribution from that suspect. If the sample does not contain any contribution from that suspect, that sample does not constitute evidence against that suspect.

Under Interpretation B, accepting all apparent peaks with no minimum RFU threshold applied, alleles of Knox's DNA are not present at loci D7S820, D13S317, D195433, and VWA. Therefore, Knox's DNA does not contribute to sample 165B, and sample 165B cannot be considered evidence against Knox.

Furthermore, because of the improper methods of collection, which did not protect against contamination, used for Sample 165B, that sample cannot, under Italian law, be considered as evidence against anyone accused of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher. This was the conclusion of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in their final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito.
Click to expand...

RaffaeleSollecito's full DNA profile on the bra clasp hook where it was bent out of shape and found under the body, under a sheet - which was used to move the victim across the floor, itself under a duvet (placed there by a perp) which had paper scattered on top of it to imply a burglary (paradoxically after the murder) and the room firmly locked by a perp (and we all know who knew about locking it and where the key was kept) is a particularly strong piece of hard objective evidence against him, which together with all the other evidence, resulted in a strong, safe conviction after a very long fair trial, overturned only by a three-day paper-only court with a dodgy judge and interference from Hillary Clinton's US State Department and funds from Donald Trump to help Knox.
 
Vixen said:
Only one of them.
Click to expand...
You're more glaring error was the inclusion of amino acids in your DNA model. After all these years you still don't understand the difference between DNA and proteins. There truly are none so blind.......
 
Vixen said:
In one way or another Vechiotti is a liar.
Click to expand...

How? What did she lie about? Once more, you make an accusation but fail to support it with any evidence.

Vixen said:
If you were as bent as Conti & Vecchiotti you most probably would if only to get your client off.
Click to expand...

Vixen, when you constantly resort to unfounded and unsupported accusations of dishonesty by judges and experts who do not support your personal belief of guilt, it only shows how weak your position is. It does not do your argument any good to keep repeating such accusations. In fact, it actually undermines it.
 
Vixen said:
RaffaeleSollecito's full DNA profile on the bra clasp hook where it was bent out of shape and found under the body, under a sheet - which was used to move the victim across the floor, itself under a duvet (placed there by a perp) which had paper scattered on top of it to imply a burglary (paradoxically after the murder) and the room firmly locked by a perp (and we all know who knew about locking it and where the key was kept) is a particularly strong piece of hard objective evidence against him, which together with all the other evidence, resulted in a strong, safe conviction after a very long fair trial, overturned only by a three-day paper-only court with a dodgy judge and interference from Hillary Clinton's US State Department and funds from Donald Trump to help Knox.
Click to expand...

What the hell is the matter with you, Vixen? The discussion is about Amanda's DNA NOT being on the clasp. In what way did this post respond to that? Is your behavior to divert attention so ingrained that you don't even know you're doing it or is this deliberate because you know you can't defend what you originally claimed?
 
TruthCalls said:
What the hell is the matter with you, Vixen? The discussion is about Amanda's DNA NOT being on the clasp. In what way did this post respond to that? Is your behavior to divert attention so ingrained that you don't even know you're doing it or is this deliberate because you know you can't defend what you originally claimed?
Click to expand...


Sample 165B is described in official reports as:

Pezzetto di stoffa con gancetti
Rep.165/A(stoffa)/B(gancetti)
Click to expand...


which translates as:

Piece of cloth with hooks
Rep.165 / A (cloth) / B (hooks)
Click to expand...


I always understood Stefanoni and Vinci to be referring to Knox and Guede DNA fragments as being on the fabric.
 
Vixen said:
RaffaeleSollecito's full DNA profile on the bra clasp hook where it was bent out of shape and found under the body, under a sheet - was found six weeks after the murder, across the room from its original location, under a dirty rug among debris, and noticeably in a much dirtier and degraded condition. Police video shows it being handled by multiple people, at least one with dirty gloves, after being dropped on the floor and retrieved.
Click to expand...

Your misrepresentation of the facts has been fixed.


under a sheet -which was used to move the victim across the floor,
Click to expand...

Um...no. There was no sheet. There was a pillow under Kercher's hips and a duvet over the body. Please try and get the facts straight.

itself under a duvet (placed there by a perp) which had paper scattered on top of it to imply a burglary (paradoxically after the murder)
Click to expand...

That's what you assume. How would bits of paper imply a burglary?

and the room firmly locked by a perp (and we all know who knew about locking it and where the key was kept)
Click to expand...

I do believe you are confusing the bedroom door with the broken front door lock. Or are you saying the Guede wouldn't know how to lock a door with a key? Are you saying that Guede couldn't find a key in MK's purse? A purse that had Guede's DNA on it? Are you really saying Guede was that stupid?

is a particularly strong piece of hard objective evidence against him
Click to expand...
,

Not according to the independent experts who found it highly indicative of contamination. Or the other many experts who agree with them. Or the SC judges.


which together with all the other evidence, resulted in a strong, safe conviction after a very long fair trial,
Click to expand...

LOL. "Safe and strong"? You do know that it was overturned by the appellate court precisely because it wasn't 'safe' or 'strong' for reasons laid out in the MR.

overturned only by a three-day paper-only court with a dodgy judge and interference from Hillary Clinton's US State Department and funds from Donald Trump to help Knox.
Click to expand...

Ah....back to the desperate allegations of bent judges and interference from outside sources, I see. What? No claims of the mafia and Masons? At least that's progress.
 
Vixen said:
Sample 165B is described in official reports as:




which translates as:




I always understood Stefanoni and Vinci to be referring to Knox and Guede DNA fragments as being on the fabric.
Click to expand...

Fine, and that's specifically what we're addressing. No one can find where Stefanoni suggests it, including you, and Vinci clearly states it's not possible to conclude Amanda's profile is present (Stacy provided the actual passage from his report - I have the full report, OCR'd into docx and then translated, so I KNOW he doesn't claim it's there).

But really, we know you're wrong on this. The point is why did you post this diversion regarding Raffaele's DNA... that's just so uncool. Stay on topic and if you can't support your claim with facts then just own up to it and move on.
 
Vixen said:
Sample 165B is described in official reports as:




which translates as:




I always understood Stefanoni and Vinci to be referring to Knox and Guede DNA fragments as being on the fabric.
Click to expand...

I find that hard to believe. Only two samples were taken from the bra clasp (Nencini MR): Sample A had only Kercher's DNA. Sample B showed the mixture which we've been discussing. Sample 165-B has always referred to the sample taken from the hook, not the fabric. The report you provided yourself clearly states the subject is 165-B on the first page in large, black letters.
 
Stacyhs said:
Vixen said:
overturned only by a three-day paper-only court with a dodgy judge and interference from Hillary Clinton's US State Department and funds from Donald Trump to help Knox.
Click to expand...

Ah....back to the desperate allegations of bent judges and interference from outside sources, I see. What? No claims of the mafia and Masons? At least that's progress.
Click to expand...

The irony of this is Vixen seems to forget that before the conviction was overturned by the "paper court" with a "dodgy judge", an acquittal was overturned by the "paper court" with a "dodgy judge". What's good for the goose...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom