Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Vixen]

Whether it seems to you is irrelevant. The DNA from saliva, sweat, blood, skin is identical. Steffanoni testified to this. You cannot identify the source of the DNA from the DNA. That is a scientific fact. That is why there is a great deal of literature on testing for blood. That is why Staffanoni tested for blood. This is a false idea that has lodged in your brain. Blood is not particularly high in DNA, it is mostly red blood cells that contain no DNA, platelets that contain no DNA and serum (liquid) that contains no DNA. The DNA is contained in white cells which are only a small faction of blood.

Please provide a reference that says in a forensic situation DNA can be used to identify the source of the DNA.

FWIW I'll reference one of the world's top experts on the forensic use of DNA. You should read his expert opinion.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497316300333

Really? So how were the experts able to identify Guede only left epithilial cells?



.

 

[Vixen]

I think it is worth remembering that even in the absence of DNA evidence there was sufficient evidence to convict Guede. His bloody handprint in the murder room, placed him in the room, and at the time of the murder. This is far stronger than the DNA evidence.

Just compare the strength of evidence against Guede. There were multiple findings of his DNA on Kercher's belongings and clothes in the murder room. Shoeprints compatible with missing shoes of Guede were found in the murder room. Guede fled Italy. One of Guede's friends reported him to the police saying he thought he was guilty (this was before the police had identified Guede as a suspect). In contrast no evidence of Knox was found in the room. Given a violent struggle if Knox or Sollecito was there you would expect an equivalent amount of evidence to that of Guede.

The only evidence of Sollecito was the bra clasp collected 6 weeks later that had benn moved and handled prior to collection.

There was no evidence of Knox in the murder room.

Guede never denied he was there. He never covered up any of his presence. There is no trace of him in Filomena's room, which there would be if he had come in through the window, having trod on muddy ground and had smashed the window, plus there would be skin scrapes and blood from the shards. But there is none. He was never wearing 'burglars gloves' or he would have continued to hide his DNA and fingerprints. In addition burglars poop in the middle of the floor. His account has always been consistent - apart from the actual attack of course. Guede was charged, sentenced and did his time. That doesn't cancel out the sure participation of the other attackers.





.

 

[Vixen]

I think it is worth remembering that even in the absence of DNA evidence there was sufficient evidence to convict Guede. His bloody handprint in the murder room, placed him in the room, and at the time of the murder. This is far stronger than the DNA evidence.

Just compare the strength of evidence against Guede. There were multiple findings of his DNA on Kercher's belongings and clothes in the murder room. Shoeprints compatible with missing shoes of Guede were found in the murder room. Guede fled Italy. One of Guede's friends reported him to the police saying he thought he was guilty (this was before the police had identified Guede as a suspect). In contrast no evidence of Knox was found in the room. Given a violent struggle if Knox or Sollecito was there you would expect an equivalent amount of evidence to that of Guede.

The only evidence of Sollecito was the bra clasp collected 6 weeks later that had benn moved and handled prior to collection.

There was no evidence of Knox in the murder room.

DNA is not the only evidence. Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence. There is an overwhelming body of evidence looked at as a whole - the all night cleaning, for example, the phones switched off, the frying of the cottage laptops, the numerous lies and evasions - that renders the PR campaign as totally misconceived.






.

 

[Vixen]

Clearly wrong. The fame Knox was complaining about had nothing to do with prison hierarchies. It was the unwanted notoriety generated by corrupt opportunistic prosecutors lying about her in the press to make themselves and their case look better.

Let me explain. Inmates are not 'jealous' of persons incarcerated because of a horrendous and heinous crime; such an inmate is reviled as infamous.

The correct word is not 'jealous' or 'famous'; the correct words are 'reviled', and as an 'infamous' sex killer of a lovely young English woman innocently studying for her class the next day.

If you are still not sure, do you think Bryan Kohberger's fellow inmates are 'jealous' of him because he is 'famous', or is he 'reviled because he is 'infamous'? (Yes, and apparently even Kohberger has his fans! I suspect they even call him 'Bryan' affectionately and despise Judge Hippler for obviously, making him stay in jail and persecuting the poor innocent dear with the threat of the death penalty. Hippler is such a bastard - just like Mignini was to AK! Bah! Dontcha just hate Kohberger's haters!)


.
.

 

[Vixen]

I think it is worth remembering that even in the absence of DNA evidence there was sufficient evidence to convict Guede. His bloody handprint in the murder room, placed him in the room, and at the time of the murder. This is far stronger than the DNA evidence.

Just compare the strength of evidence against Guede. There were multiple findings of his DNA on Kercher's belongings and clothes in the murder room. Shoeprints compatible with missing shoes of Guede were found in the murder room. Guede fled Italy. One of Guede's friends reported him to the police saying he thought he was guilty (this was before the police had identified Guede as a suspect). In contrast no evidence of Knox was found in the room. Given a violent struggle if Knox or Sollecito was there you would expect an equivalent amount of evidence to that of Guede.

The only evidence of Sollecito was the bra clasp collected 6 weeks later that had benn moved and handled prior to collection.

There was no evidence of Knox in the murder room.

There were two long blond hairs. One clasped in rigor mortis by the victim's hand. Another long strand across Mez' bag. Knox' table lamp on the floor beneath Mez' bed and a ladies size 37 ACSIS stamped in blood on the pillow. Knox is size 37. In addition, only AK would have the key to Mez door to lock her in, being the only other person home.


Please don't argue that it is OK to kill your room mate 'because AK lives there, so all mixed DNA and footprints in blood should be disregarded'.

.

 

[Vixen]

Let me explain carefully. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.


That's not what she said.

From Free, p. 21:

As excited as I'd been to enter gen-pop [general population], sharing a cell with four other women came with its own downsides, as did navigating the yard each day. Mostly because I was the odd one out. Being the only American and "famous" was not a good thing. When the TV screens weren't tuned to game shows and soap operas, my face was plastered across them, accompanied by salacious speculation about drug-addled sex-fiend Foxy Knoxy. I would have given anything to blink that media out of existence. But the other women, many of whom had been ignored or forgotten by society to begin with, and who felt even more neglected and forgotten in prison, were jealous of the attention, however negative it was. This made me a target. [italics original]​

Further, prostitution is legal in Italy.



View attachment 60765

"Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!"




.

 

[Welshman]

I think it is worth remembering that even in the absence of DNA evidence there was sufficient evidence to convict Guede. His bloody handprint in the murder room, placed him in the room, and at the time of the murder. This is far stronger than the DNA evidence.

Just compare the strength of evidence against Guede. There were multiple findings of his DNA on Kercher's belongings and clothes in the murder room. Shoeprints compatible with missing shoes of Guede were found in the murder room. Guede fled Italy. One of Guede's friends reported him to the police saying he thought he was guilty (this was before the police had identified Guede as a suspect). In contrast no evidence of Knox was found in the room. Given a violent struggle if Knox or Sollecito was there you would expect an equivalent amount of evidence to that of Guede.

The only evidence of Sollecito was the bra clasp collected 6 weeks later that had benn moved and handled prior to collection.

There was no evidence of Knox in the murder room.

Vixen constantly goes on about how Amanda and Raffaele committed murder with Guede but if this was true why does this scenario have more holes in it than a string vest. One hole is why is that Guede left abundant amounts of forensic evidence but besides the dubious bra clasp Amanda and Raffaele didn't leave any forensic evidence in Meredith's room.

 

[Myriad]

Let me explain. Inmates are not 'jealous' of persons incarcerated because of a horrendous and heinous crime; such an inmate is reviled as infamous.

The correct word is not 'jealous' or 'famous'; the correct words are 'reviled', and as an 'infamous' sex killer of a lovely young English woman innocently studying for her class the next day.

If you are still not sure, do you think Bryan Kohberger's fellow inmates are 'jealous' of him because he is 'famous', or is he 'reviled because he is 'infamous'? (Yes, and apparently even Kohberger has his fans! I suspect they even call him 'Bryan' affectionately and despise Judge Hippler for obviously, making him stay in jail and persecuting the poor innocent dear with the threat of the death penalty. Hippler is such a bastard - just like Mignini was to AK! Bah! Dontcha just hate Kohberger's haters!)

Correct, the actions of the prosecution in manipulating public opinion via false and biased announcements to the press were indeed inexcusable. Fortunately they were also one of the first indications of the level of corruption in the system that is now well understood around the world. Thank you for explaining.

 

[Numbers]

Really? So how were the experts able to identify Guede only left epithilial cells?

Vixen, that is a really good question. From the lack of any scientific information provided by the prosecution expert(s), it appears that the prosecution expert(s) did not identify epithelial cells but simply assumed that epithelial cells were the DNA source. In this way, the prosecution expert(s) avoided discussing the possibility of the presence of some other cell type, such as, for example, sperm, in a sample.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen, if you wish to show that the claims 1. that the C-V report was "expunged" by the Chieffi CSC panel and 2. that the Marasca CSC panel did not have the legal power to use the C-V report evidence from the Hellmann Court proceedings in the reasoning (MR) of its judgment contained in your post are not nonsense, please provide citations from reputable Italian legal sources to verify those claims.

Note that criticism of the C-V report findings by the Chieffi CSC panel MR does not eliminate or "expunge" the C-V report and its findings as evidence. The criticism may be understood instead as comments on scientific forensic technology and results by a court that failed to understand the subject matter it was reviewing and failed to seek help from independent subject matter experts who would have provided explanations.

Please note that the 2013 criticism of C-V by the Chieffi panel was not a criticism of C-V's work, per se. Chieffi had criticised the judge, Judge Hellmann - not the scientific pair, nor even their results - Chieffi had written that Hellmann had erred in letting C-V make the de facto *legal decision* on testing, what eventually got tested at the Nencini trial. Acc. to Chieffi, Hellmann should have farmed out the legal decision - not the scientific method or its results.

C-V had said that there was no point in making that test (IIRC), and Hellmann, acc. to Chieffi, therefore, Hellmann abrogated his role as a judge by simply accepting their (expert) word for it.

In my view - once the Marasca-Bruno court anulled Nencini's conviction - in my view this was the origin of M-B criticizing lower courts for the judges therein considering themselves to be the 'expert of the experts', making solo-decisions in an ever more complex legal/scientific landscape which law is now in everywhere. Judges, simply cannot keep up. In essence, M-B wrote that it had been entirely appropriate for C-V to be able to recommend to Hellmann that there not be further testing.

Because, surprise, surprise, when the Carabinieri Scientific police actually did the further testing, as ordered by Nencini, they found nothing, just as C-V said they would. Despite finding nothing incriminating to the defendants, Nencini convicted anyway.

All three of the points referred to Nencini by Chieffi had gone the defence's way, yet he convicted anyway.

Point being, in no way, shape or form, was the Conti-Vecchiotti report expunged. By any court. In fact, all further 'peer reviews' of their work simply confirmed it, as did Dr. Peter Gill, the reigning expert in the field.

 

[Numbers]

Please note that the 2013 criticism of C-V by the Chieffi panel was not a criticism of C-V's work, per se. Chieffi had criticised the judge, Judge Hellmann - not the scientific pair, nor even their results - Chieffi had written that Hellmann had erred in letting C-V make the de facto *legal decision* on testing, what eventually got tested at the Nencini trial. Acc. to Chieffi, Hellmann should have farmed out the legal decision - not the scientific method or its results.

C-V had said that there was no point in making that test (IIRC), and Hellmann, acc. to Chieffi, therefore, Hellmann abrogated his role as a judge by simply accepting their (expert) word for it.

In my view - once the Marasca-Bruno court anulled Nencini's conviction - in my view this was the origin of M-B criticizing lower courts for the judges therein considering themselves to be the 'expert of the experts', making solo-decisions in an ever more complex legal/scientific landscape which law is now in everywhere. Judges, simply cannot keep up. In essence, M-B wrote that it had been entirely appropriate for C-V to be able to recommend to Hellmann that there not be further testing.

Because, surprise, surprise, when the Carabinieri Scientific police actually did the further testing, as ordered by Nencini, they found nothing, just as C-V said they would. Despite finding nothing incriminating to the defendants, Nencini convicted anyway.

All three of the points referred to Nencini by Chieffi had gone the defence's way, yet he convicted anyway.

Point being, in no way, shape or form, was the Conti-Vecchiotti report expunged. By any court. In fact, all further 'peer reviews' of their work simply confirmed it, as did Dr. Peter Gill, the reigning expert in the field.

Bill Williams, I agree with your post, but I think it is incomplete, in that the Chieffi CSC panel MR criticized the Hellmann court not only for letting C-V decide that they lacked the technological capability to test an additional probable LCN DNA sample on the knife, but also for accepting that the C-V arguments were stronger and more convincing than the prosecution arguments. The Chieffi CSC panel rejected the principle of the burden of proof lies with the prosecution - that is, the presumption of innocence - in stating that the defense had to prove not only that there had been contamination, but prove how it got into the test sample. Of course, this position of the Chieffi CSC panel is a rejection of Italian Constitutional law and ECHR international law. The Chieffi CSC panel MR got into technical details that its MR shows it did not understand; it was playing at being the "expert of the experts". The Chieffi CSC panel further showed its disregard for Italian law and its judicial colleagues in the CSC by directing the referral court to use Knox's (coerced) interrogation statements (falsely) implicating Lumumba against her (and thus Sollecito) for the murder/rape trial. The CSC in an earlier decision had made clear those "calunnious" statements could only be used against Knox on the charge of calunnia against Lumumba, because the police and prosecutor had violated Italian law (CPP Articles 63 and 64) in obtaining them.

 

[Vixen]

Correct, the actions of the prosecution in manipulating public opinion via false and biased announcements to the press were indeed inexcusable. Fortunately they were also one of the first indications of the level of corruption in the system that is now well understood around the world. Thank you for explaining.

What 'false' and 'unbiased' announcements to the press were made by the prosecution? Bearing in mind even the ECHR says the press are entitled to report on an ongoing case.

Think about a recent US case - or any US murder case - can you think of one that was decided by the prosecutor and not the court? None? Why would Italy be any different?


Might I suggest a more rational and real world view? The case was reviewed by ten different judges before it even reached Giancarlo Massei. Each of the courts that dealt with the merits, Massei and Nencini had two main judges and six lay judges. The tradition in a tribunal style panel - as is the case in Napoleonic/Roman Law Europe - is to have three of the judges on one side (sympathetic to the defence case) and three on the other (sympathetic to the prosecution case). The case went through Massei, Hellmann, Chieffi, Nencini and Marasca-Bruno. Do you really believe the deluded and ridiculous fairy story perpetuated by AK that she was the victim of one prosecutor: Dr Mignini, when he wasn't even there after Massei? I think people who believe AK was 'only convicted because of a rogue prosecutor' are easily scammed.



.
.

 

[TruthCalls]

To save arguing all of this again, it might be worth someone linking to an earlier discussion on this, if interested enough. Seems to me the geneticists can differentiate between DNA from epithelial cells, saliva and other bodily fluids, such as blood. As I recall, Stefanoni did say the mixed DNA in Filomena's room was at least Mez' DNA from blood. This is something to do with white blood cells being rich in DNA material, whereas saliva and skin, not particularly, which is why when you do a home DNA test the best place for a swab is to rub the stick for quite a few seconds against your inner cheek, for a decent sample.

Once again, you're deflecting.

In discussing Rep:177 found in Filomena's room, you said;

"This was via blood which scientists could identify by the high RFU's, as only blood reacts in that way."

You were arguing they knew it was blood because of high RFU counts. Of course, it's already been proven this wouldn't prove blood even if the RFU counts were high, but in this case the values were very low. So rather than concede you were wrong, you try moving the goal posts, and now it's "geneticists can differentiate between DNA from epithelial cells, saliva and other bodily fluids, such as blood.".

Unfortunately for you, as pointed out by others, this too is false. All DNA cells from an individual are identical. Blood DNA looks exactly like saliva DNA. So no, they could not determine it was blood due to the DNA either.

You probably should have just stuck to the PGP line that because Luminol lit up it was blood. This is what led Stefanoni to believe the sample contained blood. It had nothing to do with the DNA found. And, of course, the negative TMB result shoots that argument down.

And BTW, saliva actually has a fairly high concentration of DNA, most of which comes from white blood cells, so your entire premise is bogus no matter how you slice it. **

** From the DNAGenotek website: It might surprise you to know that much confusion surrounds the real source of genomic DNA in saliva. Surprisingly, most people assume the source of DNA in saliva is strictly buccal epithelial cells. However, studies show that up to 74% of the DNA in saliva comes from white blood cells which are an excellent source of large amounts of high quality genomic DNA. Yielding virtually the same amount of DNA per volume and the same DNA quality as blood, saliva can be considered equivalent to blood for genetic applications.

 

[TruthCalls]

What 'false' and 'unbiased' announcements to the press were made by the prosecution? Bearing in mind even the ECHR says the press are entitled to report on an ongoing case.

Think about a recent US case - or any US murder case - can you think of one that was decided by the prosecutor and not the court? None? Why would Italy be any different?


Might I suggest a more rational and real world view? The case was reviewed by ten different judges before it even reached Giancarlo Massei. Each of the courts that dealt with the merits, Massei and Nencini had two main judges and six lay judges. The tradition in a tribunal style panel - as is the case in Napoleonic/Roman Law Europe - is to have three of the judges on one side (sympathetic to the defence case) and three on the other (sympathetic to the prosecution case). The case went through Massei, Hellmann, Chieffi, Nencini and Marasca-Bruno. Do you really believe the deluded and ridiculous fairy story perpetuated by AK that she was the victim of one prosecutor: Dr Mignini, when he wasn't even there after Massei? I think people who believe AK was 'only convicted because of a rogue prosecutor' are easily scammed.

Has anyone ever said the press didn't have the right to report on an ongoing investigation? Of course not, so why make the comment?

What we've been saying is the prosecution was feeding the press lies and speculation and allowing the media to not only report on that, but then to embellish it further. As Pisa said, he was looking to get the most salacious headlines out as quickly as possible, the truth be damned. A prime example being the infamous pink bathroom photo. The police released that photo to the media, and they did not correct the media when it was reported that was what the bathroom looked like when Amanda came home and showered. And if Mignini was interested in the truth, why did he use the false DM article about Amanda's loud party citation when he had to know it was false? And if he didn't know the details of what happened and simply ran with a DM article because it fit his narrative, then that's even more evidence of his incompetence.

It was a clear and obvious abuse by the police to turn the public against Amanda, and boy did it work. Even to this day I read comments by people claiming she's guilty, and citing this very same pink bathroom photo as evidence of her guilt. Yet all you can ever do is talk of the "massive PR campaign" by Marriott, even though you've still failed to cite a single lie pushed by Marriott.

 

[Vixen]

Once again, you're deflecting.

In discussing Rep:177 found in Filomena's room, you said;

"This was via blood which scientists could identify by the high RFU's, as only blood reacts in that way."

You were arguing they knew it was blood because of high RFU counts. Of course, it's already been proven this wouldn't prove blood even if the RFU counts were high, but in this case the values were very low. So rather than concede you were wrong, you try moving the goal posts, and now it's "geneticists can differentiate between DNA from epithelial cells, saliva and other bodily fluids, such as blood.".

Unfortunately for you, as pointed out by others, this too is false. All DNA cells from an individual are identical. Blood DNA looks exactly like saliva DNA. So no, they could not determine it was blood due to the DNA either.

You probably should have just stuck to the PGP line that because Luminol lit up it was blood. This is what led Stefanoni to believe the sample contained blood. It had nothing to do with the DNA found. And, of course, the negative TMB result shoots that argument down.

And BTW, saliva actually has a fairly high concentration of DNA, most of which comes from white blood cells, so your entire premise is bogus no matter how you slice it. **

** From the DNAGenotek website: It might surprise you to know that much confusion surrounds the real source of genomic DNA in saliva. Surprisingly, most people assume the source of DNA in saliva is strictly buccal epithelial cells. However, studies show that up to 74% of the DNA in saliva comes from white blood cells which are an excellent source of large amounts of high quality genomic DNA. Yielding virtually the same amount of DNA per volume and the same DNA quality as blood, saliva can be considered equivalent to blood for genetic applications.

Of course, DNA is DNA. The issue in question is, is it possible for expert geneticists to identify where that DNA originates. Clearly, they can, and this is via the quality of the RFU peaks. Blood derived DNA shows higher peaks.

Luminol is used by forensic police to highlight blood. The only other material that might affect luminol are some fruit juices such as turnip or grass. The 'alternative' idea that AK and RS were padding around barefoot in fruit juice is a real left-field long-shot nice-try desperate attempt at defelcting suspicion! Given there was blood all over the floor, as reported by Guede, who in his earliest statement - I believe via FB to Benedetti - says that he didn't know how AK managed to sleep in the apartment, as the entire hallway was covered in blood. You note whoever cleaned up, made sure to leave signs of RG's shoe prints, albeit only one set. Unfortunately, this backfired for the phantom cleaners, as RG's shoeprints show him heading out of Mez' room straight for the front door on his way out. No stopping to lock Mez' door or pull it to, for which he'd need to face the door. But we do see both AK's and RS's footprints highlighted by luminol facing Mez' door. Interestingly, there are no footprints of RS leading up to the bathmat, where his footprint is identified - and he has a very characteristic hammer toe -so maybe that is why AK was carefully scooting around on a towel between the bathroom and her room (she claims) after taking a shower (she claims) on the morning of the 2 Nov 2007, the morning after the murder..


.

 

[Vixen]

Has anyone ever said the press didn't have the right to report on an ongoing investigation? Of course not, so why make the comment?

What we've been saying is the prosecution was feeding the press lies and speculation and allowing the media to not only report on that, but then to embellish it further. As Pisa said, he was looking to get the most salacious headlines out as quickly as possible, the truth be damned. A prime example being the infamous pink bathroom photo. The police released that photo to the media, and they did not correct the media when it was reported that was what the bathroom looked like when Amanda came home and showered. And if Mignini was interested in the truth, why did he use the false DM article about Amanda's loud party citation when he had to know it was false? And if he didn't know the details of what happened and simply ran with a DM article because it fit his narrative, then that's even more evidence of his incompetence.

It was a clear and obvious abuse by the police to turn the public against Amanda, and boy did it work. Even to this day I read comments by people claiming she's guilty, and citing this very same pink bathroom photo as evidence of her guilt. Yet all you can ever do is talk of the "massive PR campaign" by Marriott, even though you've still failed to cite a single lie pushed by Marriott.

Nick Pisa wrote for the UK gossip rag, the DAILY MAIL. That wouldn't affect the trial in a different country/different jurisdiction. When it was done in Italy in the Italian press, of course those people seeking to subvert justice were charged. In the UK you would also be slapped with a Contempt of Court notice should you try to influence a trial similarly there. (This happened in a recent case, when someone wrote an article for Washington Post seeking to undermine the evidence in a complex medical case. The entire article was blocked from being read in the UK. Journalists who wanted to run the 'alternative evidence' stuff, including a columnist in PRIVATE EYE and some guy in the Netherlands, were all threatened with having charges pressed against them if they persisted.) There is nothing unique about Mignini slapping charges in Italy on the editor of WSH or AK's parents for doing something similar in Italy whilst the case was live.

It seems very naive and teenager-ish to believe Mignini did anything differently than prosecutors in any other civilised western country.





.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, that is a really good question. From the lack of any scientific information provided by the prosecution expert(s), it appears that the prosecution expert(s) did not identify epithelial cells but simply assumed that epithelial cells were the DNA source. In this way, the prosecution expert(s) avoided discussing the possibility of the presence of some other cell type, such as, for example, sperm, in a sample.

Well of course, as you know, a couple of the expert pathologists did believe Mez had been raped but the 'Aggravated' part of the murder charge pointed to the sexual assault, so a definitive finding of rape wouldn't have added much to the charges.


.

 

[Vixen]

Please note that the 2013 criticism of C-V by the Chieffi panel was not a criticism of C-V's work, per se. Chieffi had criticised the judge, Judge Hellmann - not the scientific pair, nor even their results - Chieffi had written that Hellmann had erred in letting C-V make the de facto *legal decision* on testing, what eventually got tested at the Nencini trial. Acc. to Chieffi, Hellmann should have farmed out the legal decision - not the scientific method or its results.

C-V had said that there was no point in making that test (IIRC), and Hellmann, acc. to Chieffi, therefore, Hellmann abrogated his role as a judge by simply accepting their (expert) word for it.

In my view - once the Marasca-Bruno court anulled Nencini's conviction - in my view this was the origin of M-B criticizing lower courts for the judges therein considering themselves to be the 'expert of the experts', making solo-decisions in an ever more complex legal/scientific landscape which law is now in everywhere. Judges, simply cannot keep up. In essence, M-B wrote that it had been entirely appropriate for C-V to be able to recommend to Hellmann that there not be further testing.

Because, surprise, surprise, when the Carabinieri Scientific police actually did the further testing, as ordered by Nencini, they found nothing, just as C-V said they would. Despite finding nothing incriminating to the defendants, Nencini convicted anyway.

All three of the points referred to Nencini by Chieffi had gone the defence's way, yet he convicted anyway.

Point being, in no way, shape or form, was the Conti-Vecchiotti report expunged. By any court. In fact, all further 'peer reviews' of their work simply confirmed it, as did Dr. Peter Gill, the reigning expert in the field.

Nencini hired Torrecelli and Novelli - I think the defence had Gino (who at Guede's appeal seemed to believe Mez had been stabbed 37 times!) and the court preferred Torrecelli and Novelli's expert evdience to that of the defence. That is how it works.


Marasca-Bruno can't just raise up the corpse of dodgily hired C&V.

Anyway, now all aspects of the case are over, lets hope we'll be seeing some Mafia-charges being made.



.

 

[Vixen]

Bill Williams, I agree with your post, but I think it is incomplete, in that the Chieffi CSC panel MR criticized the Hellmann court not only for letting C-V decide that they lacked the technological capability to test an additional probable LCN DNA sample on the knife, but also for accepting that the C-V arguments were stronger and more convincing than the prosecution arguments. The Chieffi CSC panel rejected the principle of the burden of proof lies with the prosecution - that is, the presumption of innocence - in stating that the defense had to prove not only that there had been contamination, but prove how it got into the test sample. Of course, this position of the Chieffi CSC panel is a rejection of Italian Constitutional law and ECHR international law. The Chieffi CSC panel MR got into technical details that its MR shows it did not understand; it was playing at being the "expert of the experts". The Chieffi CSC panel further showed its disregard for Italian law and its judicial colleagues in the CSC by directing the referral court to use Knox's (coerced) interrogation statements (falsely) implicating Lumumba against her (and thus Sollecito) for the murder/rape trial. The CSC in an earlier decision had made clear those "calunnious" statements could only be used against Knox on the charge of calunnia against Lumumba, because the police and prosecutor had violated Italian law (CPP Articles 63 and 64) in obtaining them.

The expectation is that if you are going to claim 'contamination' you need to present a plausible path of how that contamination got there specific to the scenario. Otherwise any criminal can claim 'contamination' without proper proof or testing. Hellmann was criticised for saying, 'Anything is possible', using a piece-meal method of evidence testing and failing to explain why he appointed new expert witnesses at all. As the next merits court via Nencini Appeal pointed out, C&V's report was riddled with so-called 'US standards', clearly written by AK advocates in the US, when C&V were supposed to be independent. They were very obviously bent, as was Hellmann.


.


.

 

[TruthCalls]

Of course, DNA is DNA. The issue in question is, is it possible for expert geneticists to identify where that DNA originates. Clearly, they can, and this is via the quality of the RFU peaks. Blood derived DNA shows higher peaks.

Luminol is used by forensic police to highlight blood. The only other material that might affect luminol are some fruit juices such as turnip or grass. The 'alternative' idea that AK and RS were padding around barefoot in fruit juice is a real left-field long-shot nice-try desperate attempt at defelcting suspicion! Given there was blood all over the floor, as reported by Guede, who in his earliest statement - I believe via FB to Benedetti - says that he didn't know how AK managed to sleep in the apartment, as the entire hallway was covered in blood. You note whoever cleaned up, made sure to leave signs of RG's shoe prints, albeit only one set. Unfortunately, this backfired for the phantom cleaners, as RG's shoeprints show him heading out of Mez' room straight for the front door on his way out. No stopping to lock Mez' door or pull it to, for which he'd need to face the door. But we do see both AK's and RS's footprints highlighted by luminol facing Mez' door. Interestingly, there are no footprints of RS leading up to the bathmat, where his footprint is identified - and he has a very characteristic hammer toe -so maybe that is why AK was carefully scooting around on a towel between the bathroom and her room (she claims) after taking a shower (she claims) on the morning of the 2 Nov 2007, the morning after the murder..

You keep moving the goal posts. First it was by RFU peaks, then it was they can tell just by looking at the DNA, and now it's the quality of RFU peaks, as if there was any way to measure the quality of a peak.

No, blood does NOT show higher peaks. Semen would show even higher peaks, and even peaks from a cheek swab will result in peaks of comparable height.

Regardless, even if you were correct (which you are not), as I have repeatedly stated, the RFU values from Rep:177 were very low, so the argument is moot. The bottom line is you lied when you made the claim. The ONLY think that might indicate it was blood is a Luminol reaction. That's countered by a negative TMB result. So no, there is no definitive proof the sample contained blood.

I'm not going to waste my time with this old PGP narrative of fruit juice. We all know there are hundreds of things that can cause Luminol to react, and the fact that there were 31 Luminol samples and not one was ever confirmed to be blood is telling. It's also telling that Stefanoni tested 18 of those samples with TMB - a step that is recommended and routinely done in forensic investigations - and all 18 tested negative.

No, we see unidentified footprints highlighted by Luminol.

Maybe we don't see any prints leading to the bathmat because the print on the bathmat was made by Guede after rinsing his pants leg off... he maintained his balance by lightly stepping on the mat before putting his sock back on. Prove me wrong....