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

[Stacyhs]

It's not 'proven'. The defence in that particular case managed to raise the element of doubt that it might have happened.

Another excellent example of your ability to handwave away whatever doesn't suit you.

Was Henderson's DNA found under the murder victim's fingernails? YES
Was Henderson unconscious in a hospital at the time of the murder? YES
Did the same paramedics pick up Anderson 3 hours before responding to Kumra's home? YES

Tell me, Vixen, just how did Anderson's DNA get under Kumra's fingernails? Did he sneak out of his hospital bed with an alcohol level equivalent to 21 beers, kill Kumra, and then sneak back into the hospital without being seen?

 

[Vixen]

What the hell are you talking about? Anderson was arrested and spent five months in prison because his DNA was found on the victim of a murder. Except Anderson was laying in a hospital, out cold. He couldn't possibly have been at the scene of the murder. So there is NO DOUBT his DNA got transferred by the EMS workers, though no one was able to determine how since they supposedly followed all the correct procedures, including changing gloves, something the SP failed to do.

There is what happened, and it has never been in dispute. So I have no clue whose defense you're referring to, what doubt could be raised, or what "might" have happened.

And when did Stefanoni come in contact with Sollecito to imprint his DNA on the inner bend of the bra clasp some six weeks later (the cottage being completely sealed off the entire duration)? For Stefanoni to plant Sollecito's DNA on the bra c;lasp, first she would need to get a sample of his DNA - full profile - and then plant it on a latex glove in a sneaky manner that no-one notices, and then transfer it to the bend in the clasp itself. All the time whilst the defence team are watching it livestream from a van outside. Lastly, Stefanoni would need a MOTIVE. The claim she was in a conspiracy with Mignini - given she is based at Rome - is utterly crazy and hilarious. Face reality: the DNA is on Mez' bra clasp because Sollecito put it there.

 

[Vixen]

That's funny coming from someone who writes for a website run by a nut case who leaves multiple comments under his own articles because no one else does.

The quality of debate is like that of children's playground.

 

[Vixen]

False. Our personal beliefs influence everything we do.

How you as a parent treat your autistic kid has absolutely nothing at all to do with how someone the other side of the world might. Your slagging off Naseer Ahmad as a parent to his is just the type of name calling we see in a kiddies playground. Stop pretending you are an expert in autism and that you are going to sling mud at another parent just for a cheap point scoring exercise on a completely different topic. If you want to discuss how to bring up autistic children (and don't assume 'they are all the same') then start a new topic and don't pretend it has anything to do with this one. If you are arguing that you have motherly feelings towards Knox because you think Knox is autistic or has autistic tendencies, then spell it out.

 

[Vixen]

Projection much?

I trust the Rome Scientific Police to understand it.

 

[TruthCalls]

And when did Stefanoni come in contact with Sollecito to imprint his DNA on the inner bend of the bra clasp some six weeks later (the cottage being completely sealed off the entire duration)? For Stefanoni to plant Sollecito's DNA on the bra c;lasp, first she would need to get a sample of his DNA - full profile - and then plant it on a latex glove in a sneaky manner that no-one notices, and then transfer it to the bend in the clasp itself. All the time whilst the defence team are watching it livestream from a van outside. Lastly, Stefanoni would need a MOTIVE. The claim she was in a conspiracy with Mignini - given she is based at Rome - is utterly crazy and hilarious. Face reality: the DNA is on Mez' bra clasp because Sollecito put it there.

First of all, this discussion is the result of you making the comment;

Reality tells you that you can't carry someone's full profile DNA from one spot to another.

Reality is that I've cited a very famous case that documents the fact that someone's DNA can in fact be carried from one spot to another. And, as usual, instead of you conceding that yes, DNA CAN be carried from spot to spot, despite following all precautions, you shift the discussion. So typical of you.

No one suggested Raffaele's DNA was "planted" .. "in a sneaky manner", though your hyperbole is duly noted.

But then you go on "...that no-one notices". I disagree, we all noticed it very clearly when she rubbed the bent hook where Raffaele's DNA was found.

So Stefanoni would need a motive, yet motive for Amanda and Raffaele, of which none were found, was deemed by you to be irrelevant. Funny how the importance of a motive shifts depending on what's being discussed. But no, I think it was quite clear that Mignini WANTED evidence that could potentially implicate Amanda and/or Raffaele. Why else would the forensic team go back into the cottage after 46 days and when they were already in possession of overwhelming evidence to put Guede behind bars while having literally nothing to tie Amanda or Raffaele to the crime. Perhaps you can explain why Stefanoni...

1. Failed to collect a severed bra clasp found at the scene of a sexual assault during the initial investigation, when it was numbered and photographed.
2. Waited 46 days before collecting it, when it had to have been seen on multiple occasions as Meredith's bedroom was emptied.
3. Why did she pick the clasp up with visibly dirty gloves
4. Why did she rub the hook of the clasp. Did that somehow allow her to better interpret the evidence?
5. Why was it passed around and handled by other members of the SP who were there
6. Why was it put back down on the ground to be photographed. It had already been photographed multiple times.
7. Why did Stefanoni only amplify the sample one time when she knows multiple amplifications is mandated by ENFSI standards that Italy is suppose to follow.
8. Why was the clasp improperly stored, causing it to rust and render it useless for subsequent testing. Deliberate or incompetence?

What YOU need to face is this is one very flimsy piece of evidence... multiple failures as listed above, and this was the ONLY thing tying Raffaele to the crime. But since it was the only thing tying him to the crime, it's no wonder you clutch it like religious beads.

 

[SpitfireIX]

As I patiently explained before, a crime scene is rarely a sterile one. It is not a hospital ward. In a grotty students accommodation there WILL be dust on the floor no matter how often you clean up. This can come in with your shoes or outdoor clothing from outside. All trained forensic scientists at crime scene know it is not a sterile laboratory they are looking at, which is why in criminal law there is a legal standard of a DNA sample of needing to be significant to at least 11 alleles (or markers/loci). The bra that was torn from Mez' body was found some distance from the corpse, at her feet. Therefore the fact of fragments of DNA from 'unknown males' can be safely disregarded as background noise. What can't be explained is how Sollecito's FULL - above and beyond tough legal standards - is on the inner bend of the bra clasp which had fallen off or had been ripped off and was found UNDER the body. It really is not possible for Stefanoni to have 'transferred it with her glove' six weeks later. She denies it was 'dirty' . The photo the defence has desperately put forward likely shows a shadow of some sort. There is really no feasible way in which Sollecito's DNA is well and truly on that bra clasp without his having pressed it on. You are in conspiracy cuckoo land if you believe DNA flies underneath locked doors and underneath bodies. Face reality, Sollecito placed his DNA on her bra.

What Stacy said. And to second her question, how did the dead man's DNA get on Annie Le's clothing?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Sollecito is a living person.

Are you being deliberately obtuse again? Gill said that DNA transfer generally can't be detected on a living person after 24 hours.

 

[Vixen]

First of all, this discussion is the result of you making the comment;


Reality is that I've cited a very famous case that documents the fact that someone's DNA can in fact be carried from one spot to another. And, as usual, instead of you conceding that yes, DNA CAN be carried from spot to spot, despite following all precautions, you shift the discussion. So typical of you.

No one suggested Raffaele's DNA was "planted" .. "in a sneaky manner", though your hyperbole is duly noted.

But then you go on "...that no-one notices". I disagree, we all noticed it very clearly when she rubbed the bent hook where Raffaele's DNA was found.

So Stefanoni would need a motive, yet motive for Amanda and Raffaele, of which none were found, was deemed by you to be irrelevant. Funny how the importance of a motive shifts depending on what's being discussed. But no, I think it was quite clear that Mignini WANTED evidence that could potentially implicate Amanda and/or Raffaele. Why else would the forensic team go back into the cottage after 46 days and when they were already in possession of overwhelming evidence to put Guede behind bars while having literally nothing to tie Amanda or Raffaele to the crime. Perhaps you can explain why Stefanoni...

1. Failed to collect a severed bra clasp found at the scene of a sexual assault during the initial investigation, when it was numbered and photographed.
2. Waited 46 days before collecting it, when it had to have been seen on multiple occasions as Meredith's bedroom was emptied.
3. Why did she pick the clasp up with visibly dirty gloves
4. Why did she rub the hook of the clasp. Did that somehow allow her to better interpret the evidence?
5. Why was it passed around and handled by other members of the SP who were there
6. Why was it put back down on the ground to be photographed. It had already been photographed multiple times.
7. Why did Stefanoni only amplify the sample one time when she knows multiple amplifications is mandated by ENFSI standards that Italy is suppose to follow.
8. Why was the clasp improperly stored, causing it to rust and render it useless for subsequent testing. Deliberate or incompetence?

What YOU need to face is this is one very flimsy piece of evidence... multiple failures as listed above, and this was the ONLY thing tying Raffaele to the crime. But since it was the only thing tying him to the crime, it's no wonder you clutch it like religious beads.

Anderson is an interesting case for the US forensic scientists and to understand how someone can be convicted on just one piece of circumstantial evidence. If Anderson was in hospital the whole time Kumra was murdered it should have been very easy to establish his alibi. Whilst this case might appear to show DNA transfers from one spot to another there are major differences from the Perugia case.In your case it was EMS workers who WERE in contact with both parties, were not wearing hazmat, shoe coversor latex gloves and head wear. They were tramping around in normal everyday clothes. Forensic police understand how to control an environment to prevent contamination as far as possible, What is missing in the Sollecito case is the link Sollecito - Stefanoni - Sollecito. Unlike Anderson - Kumra - to Anderson, it just isn't there. Grasping at straws because if the Sollecito evidence is faulty then so must the Guede evidence having been collected by the same team of forensic scientists. In addition, the DNA (full profile) was not just the sole evidence, it was part of a whole body of evidence including phone logs, computer logs, the bleach in his apartment, the flooding, his two false alibis, the switching off of phones for the duration of the murder, etc., etc.

 

[Vixen]

What Stacy said. And to second her question, how did the dead man's DNA get on Annie Le's clothing?

Poor reasoning.

 

[Vixen]

Are you being deliberately obtuse again? Gill said that DNA transfer generally can't be detected on a living person after 24 hours.

There was no full profile DNA transfer between Sollecito - Stefanoni - bra-clasp because Stefanoni had no contact with Sollecito for such a transfer to happen and certainly not after six weeks. You can kid yourself all you like but I for one will live in the real world.

 

[Stacyhs]

And when did Stefanoni come in contact with Sollecito to imprint his DNA on the inner bend of the bra clasp

Who knows? How did the other two men's DNA get on the same tiny hook?

some six weeks later (the cottage being completely sealed off the entire duration)?

Are you serious? Multiple people entered the cottage and MK's bedroom during those six week.

... it is certain that between the first search by the Scientific Police, directly after the discovery of the crime, and the second search by the same Police on December 18, the house at via della Pergola was the object of several other searches directed towards seeking other possible elements useful for the investigations, during which the house was turned topsy‐turvy, as is clearly documented by the photographs projected by the defence of the accused, but actually made by the Scientific Police. And understandably, these searches [91] were made without the precautions that accompany the investigations of the Scientific Police, in the conviction that at that point the exhibits that needed to undergo scientific analysis had already been collected. In this context, it is probable that the DNA hypothetically belonging to Raffaele Sollecito may have been transported by others into the room and precisely onto the bra clasp, via contact with the hands or even contact between objects and clothing on which it was already present (for example inside the sink, as observed by Dr. Gino), as in fact this manner of transporting DNA is not such a very unusual occurrence. The fact that it is not an unusual occurrence is proven by studies cited by the expert team and also by the defence consultants, to which the consultants of the PM and the civil party made no objection as to their scientific validity, but only as to whether there was any concrete proof of contamination in the present context.

For Stefanoni to plant Sollecito's DNA on the bra c;lasp, first she would need to get a sample of his DNA - full profile - and then plant it on a latex glove in a sneaky manner that no-one notices, and then transfer it to the bend in the clasp itself. All the time whilst the defence team are watching it livestream from a van outside. Lastly, Stefanoni would need a MOTIVE. The claim she was in a conspiracy with Mignini - given she is based at Rome - is utterly crazy and hilarious. Face reality: the DNA is on Mez' bra clasp because Sollecito put it there.

Get a grip. Who is claiming Stefanoni planted RS's DNA? Provide a cited quote claiming this or we'll have to consign it to the bin of "Vixen's Imagination Gone Wild, Series 10".

 

[Stacyhs]

The quality of debate is like that of children's playground.

One has to take into consideration the quality of the claim put forward:

The website run by a former fur coat salesman

That would be Bruce Fischer who just also happens to have a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice from Columbia College of Missouri.

with the mission of rescuing Amanda Knox from a villainous prosecutor in which the clocks run backwards and Mondays turn into Sunday.

 

[Vixen]

Who knows?
How did the other two men's DNA get on the same tiny hook?
Are you serious? Multiple people entered the cottage and MK's bedroom during those six week.




Get a grip. Who is claiming Stefanoni planted RS's DNA? Provide a cited quote claiming this or we'll have to consign it to the bin of "Vixen's Imagination Gone Wild, Series 10".

When you write stuff like this, it confirms to me that you can't do logic. You can't grasp simple basics.

 

[Stacyhs]

How you as a parent treat your autistic kid has absolutely nothing at all to do with how someone the other side of the world might.

Once again, you need to resort to misrepresenting what I actually said which was "I do recall that he claimed to be able to cure children of autism. As the mother of an adult child on the spectrum, that kind of **** really pisses me off." Ahmad can treat his autistic son any damn way he pleases but to tell other parents he can "cure" their child DOES piss me off because, as of now, it CANNOT BE CURED.

Your slagging off Naseer Ahmad as a parent to his is just the type of name calling we see in a kiddies playground.

And this is just typical of your lying about what I said. I said NOTHING about his parenting. Why you insist on lying about what I said when we can all read what I really said is mindboggling. You've been called out on that before and not just by me.

Stop pretending you are an expert in autism and that you are going to sling mud at another parent just for a cheap point scoring exercise on a completely different topic. If you want to discuss how to bring up autistic children (and don't assume 'they are all the same') then start a new topic and don't pretend it has anything to do with this one.

Jesus Christ! I said NONE of the above. But it's just another great example of you twisting people's words so you can act offended and get all self-righteous.

THIS is what I said:

"I do recall that he claimed to be able to cure children of autism. As the mother of an adult child on the spectrum, that kind of **** really pisses me off."

What part of that is saying or even implying that I'm an 'expert on autism"?
What part of that is slinging mud at Ahmad as a parent?
What part of that assumes 'they are all the same'?
YOU brought up Ahmad, not me.

If you are arguing that you have motherly feelings towards Knox because you think Knox is autistic or has autistic tendencies, then spell it out.

I'm not arguing that at all. But it would be interesting to discuss how anyone could honestly infer any of the above from what I said.

 

[Stacyhs]

I trust the Rome Scientific Police to understand it.

When it's convenient. Otherwise.....

 

[Stacyhs]

Poor reasoning.

Evasion of the question because you can't answer it without contradicting yourself.

 

[SpitfireIX]

We can demonstrate anything in a laboratory.

So Peter Gill is wrong, and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences is wrong, but you're right? Further, it was a demonstration at a seminar, and not a laboratory experiment.

 

[Stacyhs]

There was no full profile DNA transfer between Sollecito - Stefanoni - bra-clasp because Stefanoni had no contact with Sollecito for such a transfer to happen and certainly not after six weeks.

Sigh. Stefanoni touched who knows what before touching the bra hook. Besides, we don't know it WAS Stefanoni who transferred it as there's no record of who or what touched it during those six weeks. It certainly didn't get across the room and under that rug by itself. It could have been one of the other techs it was passed around to or even when it was dropped on the floor.

You can kid yourself all you like but I for one will live in the real world.

 

[Stacyhs]

When you write stuff like this, it confirms to me that you can't do logic. You can't grasp simple basics.
View attachment 62150

So.....you CAN'T answer the question which is why you resort to an ad hominem.

You can't deny that two, unidentified men's DNA was on the hook. So how did it get there?

a) The two men touched it directly (and 'firmly' according to you), or
b) It was unexplained contamination/transfer

It's a simple enough choice, so make it.