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

[Vixen]

Does science change from a seminar to a criminal trial?

A seminar is a discussion of ideas. A criminal trial is a weighing up of evidence and fact-finding.

 

[Vixen]

It was a demonstration for crime scene techs of how tertiary transfer can happen when gloves are not changed in between handling items. Which none of the Perugia crime scene techs did. But you're obviously desperate to pretend that that's irrelevant.

You are still not getting that for Stefanoni, a qualified, trained forensic scientist, she would need to come into contact with Sollecito's DNA for it to be 'transferred' to the bra clasp. Hello?

 

[Vixen]

There's no need. Most of us understand it with no problem.

You might condone Tate-style attempts to control females; I do not. That poster has no control over me but you are welcome to take directions from him if you wish.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Bjorkman might have some eccentric views . . .

Your typical attempts to minimize his lunatic ideas, such as nuclear weapons' being an enormous hoax.

. . . but he knew more about ship architecture than some random on the internet.

No, he doesn't, and we established that you're not qualified to critique his knowledge. Again, you just glommed on to his so-called analyses because they told you what you wanted to hear. When it was pointed out to you that no one with such a gross misunderstanding of physics could possibly be a successful naval architect, you falsely claimed that he merely questioned the feasibility of the "logistics" of nuclear weapons and space flight, and you refused to read linked pages from his own website demonstrating that misunderstanding, because you were "not interested."

So do you go along with the crowd with their MAGA level of reasoning or do you have enough intellectual curiosity to understand the truth of the Kercher murder? Most people here don't care, they just see themselves as being in a Knox fan club; they couldn't care less about the victim.

"Everyone who doesn't agree with my conspiracy theory is a blind sheep."

 

[Stacyhs]

Stop fibbing. You said:

Watch this, Vixen. It will be a new experience for you:

Yes, Vixen, I did say that. I was wrong.

See? The world didn't collapse, the sky didn't turn yellow, dogs didn't start clucking like chickens. You might try admitting you're wrong when you're wrong...which is quite often.


You've been proven numerous times with evidence that you are wrong about a lot of things, but you will defend that falsehood until hell freezes over.

 

[Vixen]

Your typical attempts to minimize his lunatic ideas, such as nuclear weapons' being an enormous hoax.


No, he doesn't, and we established that you're not qualified to critique his knowledge. Again, you just glommed on to his so-called analyses because they told you what you wanted to hear. When it was pointed out to you that no one with such a gross misunderstanding of physics could possibly be a successful naval architect, you falsely claimed that he merely questioned the feasibility of the "logistics" of nuclear weapons and space flight, and you refused to read linked pages from his own website demonstrating that misunderstanding, because you were "not interested."


"Everyone who doesn't agree with my conspiracy theory is a blind sheep."

The topic in question had nothing to do with nuclear weapons or space flight, which is why I never looked at it. I didn't agree with his view on who was culpable so I am quite capable of not being sucked into irrelevancies.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Here's an exercise for you all. Put aside all preconceptions and beliefs. Cast aside your rose-tinted spectacles. Pluck out the jaundiced eye. Eschew the romantic fairytales. Then tell me why you think this:

View attachment 62108

The shoe print found on the pillow UNDER the body. Analysed by totally objective forensic scientists who have nothing to do with Mignini or Stefanoni -selected by pure random chance as two guys skilled in engineering draughtsmanship such that they can provide an extremely accurate technical drawing to a nano-millimetre of a millimetre to identify the blood-soaked shoe print as being as follows:

View attachment 62109

Convesrion for ACIS - as identified - Ladies trainer size 37.

View attachment 62110

Is the same shoeprint as this:

View attachment 62111

Nike Outbreak 2

View attachment 62112

Men's Size 45 (Europe) 11 US.

In what netherworld is the first - a precisely measured and identified ACIS ladies trainer size 37 the same as the second, a mens Nike Outbreak 2 size 45?

I am sure Stacyhs will be along shortly to provide the usual cock and bull story about how the first is really also Guede's if you squint your eyes a bit. Perhaps perform a little origami.

To add to LJ's response, first, can you honestly not see that the tread pattern of the "ACIS ladies trainer" doesn't match the stain at all? The grooves on the tread are spaced much closer together than on the stain, and they're much thinner. Second, the outline clearly doesn't match, either. Third, as the photo shows, the lines in the stain are concave up, but the grooves in the tread are concave down. Finally, as Stacy mentioned, no such shoes of Amanda's were ever introduced as evidence, and, as I pointed out, she wore 39s anyway.

 

[Stacyhs]

Criminal law standard: only DNA with eleven or more alleles is recognised. Do keep up.

That doesn't answer the question: How do you know that the male DNA was "background noise" or "resulting from dust"?

I'm asking you to present evidence of your claim which you have not done.

 

[Stacyhs]

A seminar is a discussion of ideas. A criminal trial is a weighing up of evidence and fact-finding.

Can you ever answer a question with a direct answer and not some evasive run-around?

Does science change from a seminar to a criminal trial?

 

[Stacyhs]

You might condone Tate-style attempts to control females; I do not. That poster has no control over me but you are welcome to take directions from him if you wish.

Yet again, that has absolutely nothing to do with his or my comment.

 

[Myriad]

You might condone Tate-style attempts to control females; I do not. That poster has no control over me but you are welcome to take directions from him if you wish.

But Tate never fantasized about watching a friend die without trying to aid them and then returning later to abuse the corpse. That was you.

Imagine being there and not lifting a finger to fetch help for your 'friend'. Imagine also returning to the dead body of your friend to mess with it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Professor Steven Bustin is one of the world's foremost experts on quantitative PCR. He was a witness in a different case, one that hinged on whether one were truly detecting the measles virus or not. His discussion of DNA contamination makes it pertinent to portions of the present case. Plasmids are extrachromosomal DNA found in some microorganisms that are often used to produce proteins. The blog Respectful Insolence stated, "Contamination of PCR reactions can be particularly problematic when you are using PCR to study a gene that you’ve also placed in a plasmid. During plasmid preps, it’s very easy to spew your gene’s sequence all over the lab. Careful segregation of functions is necessary, and even then that’s no guarantee. The blog host ("Orac") quoted Professor Bustin, "So, obviously, if you have hundreds of millions, or thousands of millions, of bacteria, each containing tens of hundreds of copies of DNA, you’ve got a massive potential for DNA contamination. So you never want to have any plasmid DNA anywhere near your laboratory where you’re doing the PCR. So it struck us as peculiar that they had a room labeled “Plasmid Room” next to the laboratory, and that plasmid room contained a shaker for growing up bugs. I asked Dr. Sheils several times, and she assured me that they did not use that plasmid room for growing up F gene target for their standards. So this may or may not be the source of contamination, but the DNA, again, as Dr. Ward mentioned this morning, is all-pervasive. Once you’ve got DNA contamination, it persists for years, and it gets in everything. If you’re handling bacteria, if you’re handling plasmids, it gets into your hair, on your hands, on your clothes, and you will carry it around with you, and that is the problem...The fact is that I’m showing that they are getting DNA contamination. Where it comes from is another matter. What matters is we’re getting DNA contamination, and, by definition, therefore, we’re not detecting measles virus."

 

[Numbers]

DNA contamination by touch and by transfer is real and its occurrence has been known about for years. From a 2009 BBC News article:

Police in Germany have admitted that a woman they have been hunting for more than 15 years never in fact existed.

Dubbed the "phantom of Heilbronn", the woman was described by police as the country's most dangerous woman.
Investigators had connected her to six murders and an unsolved death based on DNA traces found at the scene.
Police now acknowledge swabs used to collect DNA samples were contaminated by an innocent woman working in a factory in Bavaria.
....
Police suspicions were based on traces of identical female DNA they found at 40 crime scenes across southern Germany and Austria
After finding her DNA at the scene of the murder of a 22-year policewoman from Heilbronn in 2007, police offered a 300,000 euro reward for information leading to her arrest.
However, police did not come any closer to identifying their most-sought suspect.
....
When police first tried to identify the victim, they found the phantom's DNA on the dead person's ID. But in a subsequent test, no trace of the phantom's DNA could be found on the document.
That was the point at which alarm bells started ringing and investigators began to suspect that the test material itself may have been contaminated with DNA, prosecutors say.
Now it has been determined that the cotton swabs used to collect DNA had been contaminated accidently by a woman working at an unidentified factory in Bavaria. ....

BBC NEWS | Europe | 'DNA bungle' haunts German police

news.bbc.co.uk

 

[Vixen]

To add to LJ's response, first, can you honestly not see that the tread pattern of the "ACIS ladies trainer" doesn't match the stain at all? The grooves on the tread are spaced much closer together than on the stain, and they're much thinner. Second, the outline clearly doesn't match, either. Third, as the photo shows, the lines in the stain are concave up, but the grooves in the tread are concave down. Finally, as Stacy mentioned, no such shoes of Amanda's were ever introduced as evidence, and, as I pointed out, she wore 39s anyway.

There is a bunch of people in the UK who are utterly convinced serial killer Lucy Letby is innocent and they meet up on her birthday in a pub to celebrate her birthday so she doesn't feel alone in prison. There is really no reasoning or logical debate with these people because they have a religious fervour in their eyes and no amount of logic or objective scientific facts can sway them. They are strikingly similar to to fans of Amanda Knox. They have the same MAGA-style belief like Donald Trump - who bailed her out - that she is innocent because they can sense it, whereas the Black guy's DNA is obviously damning. But we can all intuit that Sollecito's DNA is obviously some mistake because the Rome Scientific Police are too incompetent to understand how to discriminate against the drifter hobo drug dealer burglar thief versus the guy with a 'brand new car'. Ask Stacyhs: it should be blindingly obvious the latter cannot possibly have pressed his DNA onto the victim's underwear. Who needs reasoning?

 

[Vixen]

But Tate never fantasized about watching a friend die without trying to aid them and then returning later to abuse the corpse. That was you.

It is not a fantasy, it is a legal matter of fact. Do read the Marasca-Bruno report in full. But I'll leave you to your cosy bubble.

 

[Vixen]

That doesn't answer the question: How do you know that the male DNA was "background noise" or "resulting from dust"?

I'm asking you to present evidence of your claim which you have not done.

Read the Nencini report.

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

You're right, it should have been, and it was, but the allure of a positive DNA hit convinced investigators otherwise. It was eventually confirmed.

Whilst this case might appear to show DNA transfers from one spot to another

Doesn't just "appear" but PROVES it can happen.

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 wearing latex gloves and they stated they changed gloves. Sound familiar....

They were tramping around in normal everyday clothes. Forensic police understand how to control an environment to prevent contamination as far as possible,

They should, but with definitive proof the SP were walking from room to room without changing booties, they collected evidence using dirty gloves, they removed a piece of evidence out of it's sterile collection bag in a police station, etc., it's proven the investigators in this case were either incompetent or inexperienced, but they failed miserably to mitigate contamination.

What is missing in the Sollecito case is the link Sollecito - Stefanoni - Sollecito. Unlike Anderson - Kumra - to Anderson, it just isn't there.

No one said the situation was identical, but I'll remind you again - YOU claimed "...you can't carry someone's full profile DNA from one spot to another." and this case proves you can. You can try to dismiss or minimize this all you want, but all that does is prove you aren't impartial and neutral, as everyone else sees this for what it is - evidence that DNA CAN be carried from one spot to another.

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.

Possibly so, although Guede's DNA was in significant quantity, and since he was never in the cottage (upstairs) before that night, he had no excuse for why his DNA might be found. Further, his shoe prints and bloody palm print can NOT be the result of contamination, so your argument is without merit.

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.

None of that "whole body of evidence" even remotely hints at their involvement. That you find these things incriminating proves your claim of being neutral and impartial is laughable.

 

[TruthCalls]

Naseer Ahmad was extremely well versed in this case. He came from the same part of Lahore as Mez' mother, Arlene, and as a consequence of his interest,
he spent a lot of time in Perugia and attended some of the trial and followed it closely. He was also extremely intelligent and therefore I respect what he has to say. It does not follow that one has to agree with everything he says. You have to be aware when reading anyone's opinion that it is their view. You will agree that the view of a MAGA-voting moron has less caché than someone educated in Economics. For example, PM Carney of Canada (re tariffs). Likewise, I will take the view of Naseer more seriously than someone simply repeating soundbites about 'haters' like a nine-year-old simply because - I dunno - perhaps it makes them feel part of a granfalloon, with dopamine hits from being with fellow MAGA Reform types who feel the same happy buzz in spouting off ill-considered nonsense as each other.

Interesting. Frank Sfarzo lived in Italy, was in court every day and maintained a blog discussing the case every day. You and your fellow pro-guilt attacked Frank at every turn. So being in Perugia, and attending court doesn't impress you, apparently, but what they have to say does. Frank was pro-innocent, so he was denigrated constantly. Naseer was pro-guilt, so he's smart, invested and we should trust him.

But let's remember, it's Naseer who claims to be a messiah and can cure autistic children. Frank was just a normal journalist without any bizarre claims.

 

[TruthCalls]

AI Overview

Generally, in most legal systems, it's difficult to appeal a finding of fact made by a lower court. Appellate courts typically give deference to the trial court's factual findings, especially when those findings are based on witness testimony and evidence presented at trial. Appeals are usually focused on errors of law, not disagreements about the facts.

When a lower court concludes a sample is made from blood, when lab results say otherwise, it's pretty easy to appeal that "fact". When a court concludes multiple people were involved when forensic evidence only identifies two, and when six of seven forensic pathologists conclude the injuries are consistent or compatible with a lone assailant, it's pretty easy to question that "fact". Accepting three witnesses as credible when each one massively contradicted themselves is easy to appeal. When a court concludes a knife was the murder weapon when there is no credible forensic evidence tying it to the crime, and when the knife doesn't fit the wounds, it's easy to challenge that "fact".

The fact of the matter is the Guede courts established facts that worked against Amanda and Raffaele, even though Amanda and Raffaele did not have any legal representation when these judicial facts were being established. If you were that neutral, impartial person you claimed to be, you would be honest about that, but you aren't.

 

[TruthCalls]

Criminal law standard: only DNA with eleven or more alleles is recognised. Do keep up.

So why then do you continue to claim Meredith's DNA was on the knife? We all know there were only six peaks that reached 50 RFU, which was the established minimum for a peak to be considered reliable, yet you dismiss this and claim a complete profile. Goal post shifting at it's worst.