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

[Vixen]

If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk and there was solid evidence against them, how do you explain the arguments Vixen has to resort to. Why is it necessary to claim Meredith's DNA was on a knife whose characteristics would have made it impossible for the knife to have been used to stab Meredith or contain her DNA on it.

The knife was picked at random with no other knives taken from Raffaele’s kitchen or the cottage. Is it credible a knife collected under these circumstances was the murder weapon.
The knife didn’t match a bloody imprint on the bed.
The knife was too large to have caused the two smaller wounds.
There was bruising on the fatal wound which indicated the knife had gone all the way in. The length of the fatal wound was 8 cm whilst the length of the knife was 17 cm which indicated the knife couldn’t have caused the larger wound.
The knife didn’t have any blood or human biological material on it.
The defence had no objection to the knife being opened while the prosecution didn’t want the knife opened.
The defence wanted independent experts to examine the knife.

If there was a solid DNA profile the prosecution would not need to resort to the tactics detailed below.

• The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence , i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36B) and the bra-clasp (Rep. 165B), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (reruns), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests are “do overs”.
• The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a series of tests for which 90 percent of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide.
• The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence , i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36B) and the bra-clasp (Rep. 165B), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (reruns), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests are “do overs”.
• The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a series of tests for which 90 percent of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide.

Stefanoni told the following lie. Why resort to lying if there was a solid DNA profile?​

"Amount of DNA on the knife blade​

Patrizia Stefanoni claimed the amount of DNA on the knife blade was “in the order of some hundreds of picograms”. She claimed quantification had been performed by real-time PCR, which was untrue ( see C-V report – Knife quantification ).

The truth: A test was performed with a Qubit Fluorometer which was negative (no DNA). Two other previous tests for blood were also negative. Cytological tests that should have been performed were not. The test results after PCR (very low RFU), and a failure to perform negative control tests or implement adequate measures to prevent contamination, suggest contamination occurred from previous tests of Meredith’s DNA, that is Meredith’s DNA was not on the knife blade.

Reference: DNA-analysis"

You're just repeating C&V's dishonest claims, funded by US 'innocence campaigners'. It wasn't their place to rebel against the system, in cahoots with the obviously bribed Hellmann.




.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen writes:



Anyone who wants to make a case against AK and/or RS should stay away from that knife. The knife, kept at Raffaele's, had to have made an innocent journey to the cottage.... why? Because every court, including the convicting ones, found that the murder was not premeditated....

So - why did they transport the knife?

Also, the police technician, Stefanani, said that the so-called incriminating piece of material had survived an obvious bleach-washing of the blade, by being stuck in a striation in it. A striation no one else could see.

But which convicting court judge excused, because Stefanoni had spotted the striation under a bright light, held at a special angle... as if no one else would have thought of that, or as if no one else had had a light as bright as Stefanoni's.

This case is 11 years definitively decided, decided in an acquittal. That knife itself, is proof that the police had gone out of their way to convict innocent people.

So I agree - when YOU go out to deliberately falsify the details of a horrible murder, you should be ashamed.

The prosecution didn't argue premeditation because it did not need to. It already had 'Aggravated Murder' on the charge sheet so adding premeditation was pointless. Of course it was premeditated. Knox tearing out all of the pages in her diary for the end of October, carrying the knife in her bag to the cottage, downloading Wonderful World of Amélie in advance as the 'alibi', getting Sollecito's father to provide an alibi for his wayward son re time of the 'flood' in RS's apartment. Both turning off their phones ahead of the evening's events. Knox only switching hers back on midday next day, ringing just one of Mez' phones. Claiming they tried to bang on Mez' door and kick it down. (Why not ring Mez from there and listen to see if it rings?). The front door supposedly swinging open next morning. Only ringing the carabinieri when the postale police unexpectedly turned up. Knox saying Filomena's door was shut whilst RS telling police it was wide open and he could see there had been a burglary, yet Knox claiming to have taken a shower in the dark and without heating but claming to not notice her lamp was missing, despite that being the only electric source of light. The mise-en-scène clearly tells you this was all planned and organised and put into effect as soon as an opportunity arose, to enact their depraved fantasy, fueled by drugs. Like Leopold and Loeb, their mistakes were their undoing. Yet AK is still making money out of the gullible.



.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, thanks for bringing up your misleading claims, even if borrowed from Nencini, about the sources cited by Conti and Vecchiotti in their report. It led me to re-read a large section of their report. I would encourage readers here who may not have read the C&V report, or like me have read it years ago and have forgotten some of the extensive details they present on the methods and procedures required in forensic DNA profile testing, including in those cases where the amount of DNA in a sample is exceeding small (LCN DNA: low copy number DNA).

The best source for a full-text English translation of the C&V report is contained in a series of web pages beginning at:

Contents

Assignment [Incarico] Tests [Operazioni Peritali] Description of Item 36 (Knife) [Descrizione del Rep. 36 (Coltello)] Laboratory Analyis of Item 36 [Analisi di Laboratorio sul Rep. 36] Description…

knoxdnareport.wordpress.com

The C&V report presents many sources in their discussion on inspection and collection techniques for presumed evidence required to minimize contamination so that subsequent DNA testing is likely to be reliable. The ENFSI and Interpol sources are provided last in a rather long annotated list of sources that includes but is not limited to US academic, state, and federal sources. It's possible that sources with this type of detailed information on crime scene management and DNA evidence collection were not available in Italian at the relevant time. Here are some of the sources listed:

Guidance on the Production of Best Practice Manuals within ENFSI, ref cod. QCC-BPM-008, 01/05/2008,
Interpol Handbook on DNA Data Exchange and Practice – Recommendations from the Interpol DNA Monitoring Expert Group – second edition 2009:
Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation (by Barry Fisher, CRC ed. 2003)
Crime Scene Investigation – A guide for Law Enforcement (US Dept. of Justice, January 2000)
Crime Scene Investigation: a Reference for Law Enforcement Training (US Dept. of Justice, June 2004
Handbook of Forensic Services (Laboratory Division, FBI, US Dept. of Justice, 2007)

Also included in the sources are the handbooks on crime scene management and DNA evidence collection from 5 US states, including Missouri and Wisconsin.

It should be clear that the information provided in the sources provided by C&V are not country-specific laws or practices, but rather the general scientific and technological methods required to achieve reliable collection of DNA evidence. A simple analogy would be an engineering text on bridge building; one of the key principles would be that the bridge must be supported adequately so that the worst-case anticipated moving loads on the bridge don't result in the bridge collapsing. That is a general principle true in every place on earth.

Source: https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...otes-on-inspection-and-collection-techniques/

Thank you for confirming the resounding hand of the US brigade in C&V's report.



.

 

[Numbers]

Thank you for confirming the resounding hand of the US brigade in C&V's report.

The US brigade also controls all the airplanes in the world because of the Wright Brothers. (If one skips the contributions of France, Germany, Britain, Brazil, and all the other nations that contributed to the development of aviation.) And all of the car, truck, and airplane tires and even wagon wheels in the world are round just like in the US - again confirming the resounding hand of the US brigade.

More explicitly, VIxen, the statement in your post quoted above is an absurdity.

Certain methods are required to ensure that evidence collected for forensic DNA profile testing gives reliable results. Forensic scientists and technologists in the US, the UK, and other countries have developed these methods and written about them. There may be more publications about these methods in the US in part because of its federal system - the US federal government and each of the 50 states having their respective areas of sovereignty. Each state may (or may not) feel the need to issue a guidebook on evidence collection similar to the federal guidebook; the information is based on scientific and technological principles, however, not variations in laws.

The ENFSI documents (at least the one on DNA evidence collection) is written in English - possibly because the many European contributors needed to choose a common language for an official document:

Official language
The text may be translated into other languages as required. The English language version remains the definitive version.

However, there were ten contributors, representing nine different countries - there were two from the Netherlands. One of the contributors was Peter Gill, who now works in Norway, although he did most of his development of DNA profile testing in the UK.*

Source:

https://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/ENFSI-DNA-BPM-03.pdf

* The first patent on the use of DNA variation for use in forensics was filed in the US by J. Glassberg in 1983. Alec Jeffreys independently developed a different method in the UK in 1984. Jeffreys went on to further develop the method for practical use with Peter Gill and Dave Werrett of the UK Forensic Science Service. See:

DNA profiling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen wrote:

The prosecution didn't argue premeditation because it did not need to. It already had 'Aggravated Murder' on the charge sheet so adding premeditation was pointless. Of course it was premeditated.

Well, you get full marks for avoiding the issue.

The issue is not what the prosecution(s) presented - the issue is what the courts found as factual - nice try at bait and switch, though. EVERY court found that Guede's crime was not premeditated, and the two convicting courts found that AK/RS's supposed involvement HAD NOT BEEN PREMEDITATED EITHER!

The prosecutions in those cases actually did float the idea of premeditation.... but let's not let facts delay us....

It's why both the Massei court as well as the Nencini court had to go through gymnastics, to have that knife transported from Raffaele's to the cottage - for innocent reasons. Even the convicting courts found that until Guede had attacked the victim, that it had never entered the mind fof AK or RS to join in - which the Massei court, for instance, ruled that they'd participated in Guede's crime in an inexplicable 'choice for evil.'

So - all of your evidenceless inventions following your bait and switch remain just that. Evidenceless assertions, which the final court would have said, "even if true, still does not make up for the lack of evidence in the murder room which implicate either AK or RS."

And since those assertions are NOT true, just guilter inventions...... you do the math.

 

[TruthCalls]

There were 15-alleles - Mez' near-full DNA profile.

No, there are 15 chromosomal locations, or loci, considered, and at each of those locus there are two alleles, for a total of 30 alleles evaluated. Of those 30, only 6 were above 50 RFU and, as such, those are the ONLY ones that are useful for identifying the profile. For someone who keeps claiming we don't know the science, you show an alarming lack of understanding of the science.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen wrote:



Well, you get full marks for avoiding the issue.

The issue is not what the prosecution(s) presented - the issue is what the courts found as factual - nice try at bait and switch, though. EVERY court found that Guede's crime was not premeditated, and the two convicting courts found that AK/RS's supposed involvement HAD NOT BEEN PREMEDITATED EITHER!

The prosecutions in those cases actually did float the idea of premeditation.... but let's not let facts delay us....

It's why both the Massei court as well as the Nencini court had to go through gymnastics, to have that knife transported from Raffaele's to the cottage - for innocent reasons. Even the convicting courts found that until Guede had attacked the victim, that it had never entered the mind fof AK or RS to join in - which the Massei court, for instance, ruled that they'd participated in Guede's crime in an inexplicable 'choice for evil.'

So - all of your evidenceless inventions following your bait and switch remain just that. Evidenceless assertions, which the final court would have said, "even if true, still does not make up for the lack of evidence in the murder room which implicate either AK or RS."

And since those assertions are NOT true, just guilter inventions...... you do the math.

Knox wrote short stories about Tate-like rapes and killings, she had 'Edgar' carry a kitchen knife out of a drawer. The more I consider the case, the more I believe Mignini's instincts were right first time. A macabre halloween-themed 'crime scene' whodunnit, with teasing faked burglary, Mez positioned like a porno panel from one of RS' horror-porno manga comics. Both expressing strong anti-social sentiments on their various social media, both enjoying shocking people. Giofreddi saw RS and AK with Mez and RG walking down the road the day before. RG and RS might not have nown each other personally but had certainly met, with AK as the go between them. AK absolutely loving all the attention. First to 'find the body' (RS to Kate Mansey of the Daily Mirror) and as broadcast to her friends on the phone at the Questura, first to know Mez 'Had her throat slit', first to know 'Of course, she ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ suffered!', first to know her body was by the wardrobe (where she died), first to know about the scream, enacted it by covering her ears every time the police or Mignini mentioned it, even called her cat 'Screams'! Absolutely basking in her notoriety. Even have the cheek to demand €2m in compensation for the terrible, terrible thing they did.


.

 

[Vixen]

No, there are 15 chromosomal locations, or loci, considered, and at each of those locus there are two alleles, for a total of 30 alleles evaluated. Of those 30, only 6 were above 50 RFU and, as such, those are the ONLY ones that are useful for identifying the profile. For someone who keeps claiming we don't know the science, you show an alarming lack of understanding of the science.

The court was free to accept or reject any of the evidence. That is how a criminal court works.



.

 

[TruthCalls]

You still cannot get your head around the fact DNA does not fly around, contrary to what Stefano Conti might have said in the AK/RS Netflix propaganda film. Even Peter Gill affirms that secondary transfer of DNA is rare and would need to happen within 24 hrs. Think about the footprint on the bathmat. It is lodged there. Stamped upon it. Impressed. Absolutely embedded. No one can come along and 'accidentally or purposefully transfer it elsewhere. Likewise, someone's DNA on a bra clasp - or on a knife blade or handle - is there precisely because it has firmly either been gripped by that person or someone took the knife to their flesh.


Have a think about whether Mez' DNA could have somehow 'jumped' onto this knife completely out of nowhere. If a footprint cannot, neither can a person's DNA imprint.

View attachment 61256

Oh, FFS, what part of...

Once sealed, packages should not be re-opened outside of the laboratory environment.

...are you not understanding? Apparently you still cannot get your head around the fact that you don't get to violate the protocols because you don't think there's a risk. The protocol exists for a reason and the state is REQUIRED to adhere to it. And unless you can provide some evidence that proves there was none of Meredith's latent DNA laying around that desk at the police station, I'm really not interested in the rest of your fanciful babble.

No wonder you don't address the full list of procedural and protocol violations... you can't even get past one very obvious violation.

 

[TruthCalls]

The court was free to accept or reject any of the evidence. That is how a criminal court works.

Yes, but a court is not free to re-write the forensic handbook that Italy is required to follow. This is one of the many reasons why Nencini got overturned.

 

[Numbers]

The court was free to accept or reject any of the evidence. That is how a criminal court works.

No, a court in Italy can only reject evidence for a valid reason ("not allowed by law, superfluous, or irrelevant"; CPP Article 190) , and can only accept evidence if it is lawfully obtained (CPP Article 191). But a court cannot infer a fact from evidence if that evidence is not "serious, precise, and consistent" (CPP Article 192, paragraph 2).

DNA profile evidence that is improperly gathered, improperly tested, or improperly analyzed is not "serious" or "precise" so it can't be used to infer a fact from the alleged profile. It may also be considered "irrelevant".

 

[LondonJohn]

No, a court in Italy can only reject evidence for a valid reason ("not allowed by law, superfluous, or irrelevant"; CPP Article 190) , and can only accept evidence if it is lawfully obtained (CPP Article 191). But a court cannot infer a fact from evidence if that evidence is not "serious, precise, and consistent" (CPP Article 192, paragraph 2).

DNA profile evidence that is improperly gathered, improperly tested, or improperly analyzed is not "serious" or "precise" so it can't be used to infer a fact from the alleged profile. It may also be considered "irrelevant".

Exactly. It's beyond all doubt that there was gross incompetence, ignorance and professional malpractice concerning most* of the DNA/blood evidence that was analysed & presented to the court.

It's also beyond all doubt that not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni was serially incompetent and ignorant when it came to the analysis and presentation of low-template DNA. Heck, she didn't even have positive-pressure hoods around the benches where low-template DNA samples are unpacked and analysed - such hoods are crucial and mandatory for LCN work. The very fact that Stefanoni didn't have such equipment shows, in and of itself, that she had no idea about how do do low-template analysis properly. She was doing no more that cosplaying a low=template DNA analyst.

In addition, it's beyond all doubt that the Massei and Nencini courts did not understand or evaluate the low-template DNA "evidence" correctly. Which was one of the reasons why the Marasca Supreme Court panel correctly & appropriately threw the case out. When it came to the murder charges against Knox & Sollecito, the Marasca court correctly concluded that there was not a single piece of forensic evidence (nor any other variety of evidence) that could be adjudged reliable or credible (= "serious and precise" in the Italian vernacular) by a competent court.


* Including all of the low-template "evidence" related to Knox and/or Sollecito. Note that none of the key forensic evidence against Guede was in the category of low-template DNA.

 

[Stacyhs]

They did doctor it. My pic is a direct photo of what appeared on Netflix. Heavily darkened to hide the high level of illumination and with a great sign saying 'inconclusive', which was a blatant piece of misinformation designed to mislead the viewer.

View attachment 61249

As I said, they ARE NOT THE SAME PHOTO. In order to claim they darkened the photo to hide the illumination, it would have to be the SAME PHOTO. The Netflix photo is an entirely different photo they used to show the locations of the two samples on the knife. There is no evidence they DARKENED it.

Now you've got the directors and producers of a Netflix documentary, who had no personal link to Knox, joining your ever-increasing list of "bent/paid off/incompetent" people:
Bongiorno, Altieri, Popovic, Gill, Hellmann, Hampikian, Vinci, Conti, Vecchiotti, etc.

The actual pic used as evidence in court and the DNA accepted as Mez' (not 'inconclusive' at all!) :


View attachment 61250

When two independent, court appointed forensic experts with more experience, more education, and more training than Stefanoni professionally find that her result is "scientifically unreliable", then it's inconclusive. Gill, Hampikian, Johnson, etc. also agree. But they're ALL 'bent', right?

It's pretty disgusting when people deliberately set out to falsify the details of a horrible murder.

It's pretty disgusting when people deliberately make accusations they cannot back up with evidence.
It's pretty disgusting when people deliberately mischaracterize what people say and events.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, but a court is not free to re-write the forensic handbook that Italy is required to follow. This is one of the many reasons why Nencini got overturned.

All of the items passed into evidence, together with the issues, are decided in trial prehearings. The parties would have all agreed on what constitutes the evidence to be referred to. It is at these numerous pre-hearings that the defence would have raised objections if any. If something is passed into the evidence file/exhibits file, then it has been authorised by the courts via the correct legal processes, with the defence given every opportunity to lodge an objection. LCN evidence is perfectly valid. Given the knife, blood, phone logs and luminol, together with Sollecito's false alibi, which he never rectified, the court looked at ALL of the allowable evidence, and all the issues, as agreed in advance by all of the parties.



.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen said:
The Italian Scientific Police follow the guidelines of the ENFSI – the European Network Forensic Science Institutes. Dr Stefanoni observed that they followed these specific guidelines whereas Conti and Vecchiotti basically picked and mixed a random selection of international opinions:


“We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs is just a collage of different international opinions”.

Vixen:
It was a rebuke by Nencini.

No, it wasn't. It was Stefanoni who said it in 2011:

"We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs is just a collage of different international opinions," said Stefanoni.

Vixen:

Stefanoni doesn't need to tell the court she follows ENFSI; it is a given professional standard. Just like I follow my professional standards without needing to spell it out each time.

The police video of the collection of the bra clasp alone proves they did NOT follow ENFSI standards. Unless not changing gloves when handling evidence, touching it directly with dirty gloves and passing it around to several others is according to ENFSI standards? How about storing damp towel evidence in plastic so they rot? How about storing the metal hooks in a solution that caused them to rust? How about ignoring the instructions and increasing a fluorometer's sensitivity parameters several times due to "too low" results? As C & V said:

"4. International protocols of inspection, collection, and sampling were not followed"

 

[Stacyhs]

"It's pretty disgusting when people deliberately set out to falsify the details of a horrible murder."

My homemade, heavy-duty irony meter just exploded.

 

[Stacyhs]

There were 15-alleles - Mez' near-full DNA profile.




.

I'll ask yet one more time: Quote and cite any forensic expert but Stefanoni confirming this. Unless you can do that, it can only be assumed that you cannot do so.

 

[Numbers]

Exactly. It's beyond all doubt that there was gross incompetence, ignorance and professional malpractice concerning most* of the DNA/blood evidence that was analysed & presented to the court.

It's also beyond all doubt that not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni was serially incompetent and ignorant when it came to the analysis and presentation of low-template DNA. Heck, she didn't even have positive-pressure hoods around the benches where low-template DNA samples are unpacked and analysed - such hoods are crucial and mandatory for LCN work. The very fact that Stefanoni didn't have such equipment shows, in and of itself, that she had no idea about how do do low-template analysis properly. She was doing no more that cosplaying a low=template DNA analyst.

In addition, it's beyond all doubt that the Massei and Nencini courts did not understand or evaluate the low-template DNA "evidence" correctly. Which was one of the reasons why the Marasca Supreme Court panel correctly & appropriately threw the case out. When it came to the murder charges against Knox & Sollecito, the Marasca court correctly concluded that there was not a single piece of forensic evidence (nor any other variety of evidence) that could be adjudged reliable or credible (= "serious and precise" in the Italian vernacular) by a competent court.


* Including all of the low-template "evidence" related to Knox and/or Sollecito. Note that none of the key forensic evidence against Guede was in the category of low-template DNA.

Stefanoni lied on her data forms about how two knife blade samples (36B & C) and one other sample (36A) were quantified. She also lied in the GUP hearing, claiming that sample 36B had a large amount of DNA and that it had been quantified by real time PCR. In reality, samples 36A, B, and C had all been quantified by Qubit Fluorometer; both 36B and C had undetectable amounts or no DNA ("too low" to detect as Stefanoni indicated on her other data sheets). Stefanoni had subjected sample 36B to several aspiration (suction) procedures in an attempt to concentrate the DNA, although Stefanoni did not have any quantitative measurement of the concentration.

On the other hand, it is not possible to comprehend the criteria adopted in the assessment of the positive quantification result of sample B and the negative result of sample C, given that the same result, “too low”, was obtained for both samples: that is, a value which must be considered not only below the sensitivity threshold of the Fluorimeter indicated by the manual (DNA concentrations of 0.2 ng/μl) but below 0.08 ng/μl, a value which the Fluorimeter detected for sample A.

Neither is it comprehensible, considering the negative results on sample B, what Dr. Stefanoni reported in the GUP questioning (page 178) where she stated that the DNA in sample B, quantified with Real Time PCR (it is recalled that such quantification as confirmed during the hearing was never carried out or, at least, no documentation was provided to support this claim), was “in the order of some hundreds of picograms”, a value which does not appear in any of the documents provided to us (SAL, Fluorimeter report, Real Time report, RTIGF).

regarding the extract obtained from sample B (knife blade), the Work Status Report (SAL) shows that this extract was 50 μl. In the GUP hearing, the Technical Consultant affirmed having concentrated sample B to “20, 22, 23 microliters”, of having quantified it with Real Time (GUP, page 178: “Quantification which you did with real time, I imagine?” A: “Eh, yes”) and of subsequently concentrating it again to “10 microliters”, but there is no trace of these operations in the documentation exhibited (c.f. SAL). Neither is it known what the amount of DNA was in the extract concentrated to “20, 22, 23 microliters” and/or the amount of DNA in the extract concentrated to 10 μl.

In the case in question, it is recalled that Exhibit 36 was placed for testing into a context where a considerable number of samples belonging to the victim had already been examined; therefore, it cannot be excluded that contamination by the aforementioned methods may have occurred – all the more so because the negative controls, which should have been amplified contextually and which could have given an indication as to the absence of contamination, were not produced

a reliable method for quantifying the DNA from samples A-B-C was not employed, and the quantification performed with the Qubit Fluorimeter™ gave the result “too low” for samples B-C, indicating a DNA amount below the sensitivity threshold of the Fluorimeter (>200 pg/μl), and therefore indicative of a probable LCN sample

See:

Quantification of DNA

Quantification of the DNA extracted from the aforementioned samples was then performed. On page 78 of the RTIGF, the following tables are shown: The above tables show that DNA quantification for al…

knoxdnareport.wordpress.com

Amplification

With regard to the subsequent amplification of the extracts, the following is reported on pages 78-79 of the Technical Report: “The amplification of the autosomal STRs was performed according…

knoxdnareport.wordpress.com

Amplification

With regard to the subsequent amplification of the extracts, the following is reported on pages 78-79 of the Technical Report: “The amplification of the autosomal STRs was performed according…

knoxdnareport.wordpress.com

Assessment of the Forensic Genetic Tests Conducted by the Scientific Police on Item 36 (Knife)

From what has been set forth above, we hold that the documentation in the case file reveals inaccuracies and gaps about the analytical procedures performed on Exhibit 36. In particular: – r…

knoxdnareport.wordpress.com

 

[Stacyhs]

You still cannot get your head around the fact DNA does not fly around, contrary to what Stefano Conti might have said in the AK/RS Netflix propaganda film.

DNA is in the air, Vixen.

Humans are constantly shedding tiny pieces of DNA from sweat, spit, blood and skin. These microscopic fragments litter the environment across the Earth. Now, scientists at the University of Florida have discovered they can easily collect quality human DNA from air, sand and water, raising a host of ethical questions about privacy and consent.

and

They also gathered air samples from a sea turtle hospital in Florida with six volunteer workers and matched the eDNA bits to the staff members, the animal patients and common animal viruses.

and

Humans constantly shed deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) into the surrounding environment. This DNA may either remain suspended in the air or it settles onto surfaces as indoor dust. In this study, we explored the potential use of human DNA recovered from air and dust to investigate crimes where there are no visible traces available-for example, from a recently vacated drugs factory where multiple workers had been present. Samples were collected from three indoor locations (offices, meeting rooms and laboratories) characterized by different occupancy types and cleaning regimes. The resultant DNA profiles were compared with the reference profiles of 55 occupants of the premises. Our findings showed that indoor dust samples are rich sources of DNA and provide an historical record of occupants within the specific locality of collection. Detectable levels of DNA were also observed in air and dust samples from ultra-clean forensic laboratories which can potentially contaminate casework samples.

Several recent studies showed the unity of air and dust as reservoirs of human DNA suitable for forensic analysis.

Dust had been proven to contain DNA of humans, animals, and other organisms. And yes, dust does "fly around".

Even Peter Gill affirms that secondary transfer of DNA is rare and would need to happen within 24 hrs.

Hmmm....you've accused Gill of being bent yet you quote him when convenient. However, this is what Gill says in his co-authored paper "The invisible witness: air and dust as DNA evidence of human occupancy in indoor premises"

DNA recovery from dust​

A total of 96 dust samples were collected across 14 different offices (1–7 occupants). All samples gave DNA results, however three were negative as they did not give any match with a known PoI with LR > 100, (Table 2). Positive results were obtained from 93 out of 96 dust samples for one or more office occupants, resulting in a success rate of φ<em>1</em> = 0.97. Only 22 of the same samples matched with a known non-occupant, giving a non-occupant success rate of φ<em>2</em> = 22/96 = 0.23.

Think about the footprint on the bathmat. It is lodged there. Stamped upon it. Impressed. Absolutely embedded. No one can come along and 'accidentally or purposefully transfer it elsewhere. Likewise, someone's DNA on a bra clasp - or on a knife blade or handle - is there precisely because it has firmly either been gripped by that person or someone took the knife to their flesh.

Rubbish which has been disproved in multiple scientific studies. You're claiming that a person's DNA can only be on something if they directly touched it. If so, then how did those two, unidentified men's DNA get on the bra hook? Are you claiming those two men directly touched it?

Have a think about whether Mez' DNA could have somehow 'jumped' onto this knife completely out of nowhere. If a footprint cannot, neither can a person's DNA imprint.

A footprint is not a DNA trace. Don't be dishonest.

View attachment 61256

That is NOT how the knife was originally packaged. That is how it was presented in court in 2009:

From Honor Bound:

They also produced the kitchen knife itself, parading it around the courtroom like a holy relic inside a clear plastic box, stamped HANDLE WITH CARE in English for the benefit for the foreign press. They did not mention, of course, that the way the knife had originally traveled from my kitchen to the Polizia Scientifica lab in Rome broke recognized chain-of-custody rules. As the prosecution’s own paperwork showed, it was
not put in a sealed evidence bag but was placed in an envelope and mailed inside an ordinary box.

From Analysis and implications of the miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito by Peter Gill:

The knife was found in a kitchen drawer with other cutlery. It is not clear who handled the knife at the apartment, or whether the officers changed gloves between the handling of different pieces of evidence. Officers testified that the knife was put in an envelope, which had been used to store new gloves for the officers, for transfer to the police station. One officer who handled the knife at police headquarters had been in Kercher’s apartment, and specifically in Knox’s room, earlier in the day. Police officers did not remove other knives or test them to control for background contamination.

According to the report authored by the independent experts, Professors Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti, one officer testified that, at the police station, he had noticed that the knife packaging was not properly sealed and that he closed two gaps in the envelope with tape. Another officer testified that, wearing gloves, he later removed the knife from the envelope and put it in a non-sterile box that he closed with tape.

 

[Stacyhs]

You're just repeating C&V's dishonest claims, funded by US 'innocence campaigners'.

Jesus Christ, Vixen. C & V were paid by the Italian state as they were assigned the task by the court.

It wasn't their place to rebel against the system, in cahoots with the obviously bribed Hellmann.

Both of those claims are yet just more examples of your ridiculous "THEY'RE ALL BENT!!" campaign.