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

[TruthCalls]

Guede's DNA was found on the cuff of Mez' blue sweatshirt, under the body. That is how they built a case of his having restrained her by her wrists. The bra clasp was also under the body...and Sollecito's DNA - full profile (let that sink in) - was on it. But you don't do reality, do you?

Actually, what did Guede in was his DNA inside Meredith, his bloody palm print, his bloody shoe prints and his DNA in Meredith's blood on her handbag. So if you want to argue incompetence implicating Guede, then please explain how their incompetence resulted in this evidence.


During one of your funnier moments you claimed to be "impartial, neutral and entirely objective". I remind you I cited eight (8) things the SP did wrong wrt the clasp and asked for you to explain the list if not incompetence and you ignored it. Well, here's the list again... either justify all of the mistakes or admit they were incompetent and compromised the evidence. Let's see if you do reality.

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?

 

[LondonJohn]

Guede's DNA was found on the cuff of Mez' blue sweatshirt, under the body. That is how they built a case of his having restrained her by her wrists. The bra clasp was also under the body...and Sollecito's DNA - full profile (let that sink in) - was on it. But you don't do reality, do you?

How was the profile of two as-yet-unidentified males also found on Kercher's bra clasp, Vixen? Looking forward (with popcorn) to your attempted response.

 

[LondonJohn]

If they're incompetent with Sollecito's DNA collection then it follows ipso facto they are incompetent with Guede's.

This has now been explained to you patiently and in detail numerous times. One can only conclude either that you're too ignorant of the required scientific knowledge to understand the reasoning, or that you doggedly refuse to understand the reasoning.

(Four quick (and non-exhaustive, btw) hints for your attempted comprehension:
1. Guede's correctly-identified palm print in Kercher's blood on the pillowcase
2. Guede's clearly (and correctly) identified shoeprints in Kercher's blood in the hallway of the cottage
3. Guede's easily disproven attempt at an alibi, in which he went out dancing in a Perugia bar within a couple of hours of the murder (when he later claimed to have been traumatised by "witnessing the aftermath" of the murder and feared he'd be framed for it)
4. Guede's epithelial DNA - at regular PCR levels, and recovered from the body by a competent clinician, Dr Lalli - found in/on Kercher's genital area.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually, what did Guede in was his DNA inside Meredith, his bloody palm print, his bloody shoe prints and his DNA in Meredith's blood on her handbag. So if you want to argue incompetence implicating Guede, then please explain how their incompetence resulted in this evidence.


During one of your funnier moments you claimed to be "impartial, neutral and entirely objective". I remind you I cited eight (8) things the SP did wrong wrt the clasp and asked for you to explain the list if not incompetence and you ignored it. Well, here's the list again... either justify all of the mistakes or admit they were incompetent and compromised the evidence. Let's see if you do reality.

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?

And let's not forget which incompetent, way-out-of-her-depth, dissembling not-a-real-doctor forensic functionary was personally overseeing all of the crime scene "evidence" collection, at the behest of her not-so-secret admirer Giuliano Mignini......

 

[LondonJohn]

If you really don't understand the difference between exchanging abstract ideas and hypotheses by a bunch of academics at a seminar and a fact-establishing criminal court of law, there is no hope.

If you really don't understand that the very standards of forensic proof and standards of collection/storage/handling of forensic evidence were all created and evolved with the full and active participation of academic experts... there is no hope. I guess one has to have a proper understanding of academia and its (entirely healthy and appropriate) interaction with government and law enforcement. It's a shame that your post is so profoundly lacking in any such understanding.

 

[LondonJohn]

Indeed. And not a hint of embarrassment from SpitfireIX or TruthCalls in believing the ridiculous notion that Sollecito's DNA on the murder victim's underwear was transferred by a forensic police officer from a door frame. Oh dear, indeed.

Oh it wasn't their posts to which I was responding. It was yours.

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh dear.

Catechism #5: St. Raffaele's DNA was transferred from the door jamb onto the bra clasp by the demon Stefanoni. [fx kneels at the jamb of the door]

See PGPS Catechism #7.

 

[Stacyhs]

Catechism #6: I believe in the holy door jamb, maker of St. Raffaele's innocence and everlasting peace, so help me, Hellmann. [fx: prostrates oneself in front of said holy relic]

See PGPS Catechism #7.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sfarzo was a twat.

The entire TJMK gang are twats.

 

[Stacyhs]

This has now been explained to you patiently and in detail numerous times. One can only conclude either that you're too ignorant of the required scientific knowledge to understand the reasoning, or that you doggedly refuse to understand the reasoning.

(Four quick (and non-exhaustive, btw) hints for your attempted comprehension:
1. Guede's correctly-identified palm print in Kercher's blood on the pillowcase
2. Guede's clearly (and correctly) identified shoeprints in Kercher's blood in the hallway of the cottage
3. Guede's easily disproven attempt at an alibi, in which he went out dancing in a Perugia bar within a couple of hours of the murder (when he later claimed to have been traumatised by "witnessing the aftermath" of the murder and feared he'd be framed for it)
4. Guede's epithelial DNA - at regular PCR levels, and recovered from the body by a competent clinician, Dr Lalli - found in/on Kercher's genital area.)

"1. Guede's correctly-identified palm print in Kercher's blood on the pillowcase"

This is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against RG, imo. I wonder what fantastical explanation Vixen could provide us with to explain that.

 

[LondonJohn]

"1. Guede's correctly-identified palm print in Kercher's blood on the pillowcase"

This is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against RG, imo. I wonder what fantastical explanation Vixen could provide us with to explain that.

As far as I'm aware, the standard pro-guilt fantasy regarding this piece of evidence is the very same fantasy concocted by Guede himself - that he was quietly relieving himself in the large bathroom when Knox and Sollecito burst in and stabbed Kercher; Guede then (per the fantasy) came out of the bathroom to find Sollecito barging past him shouting a racist accusation, and then he (Guede) went into Kercher's room to try to help her (getting his bloody handprint on the pillowcase in the process).

Of course this is all a pile of self-serving bollocks, on the part of both Guede and the Guilters. Even worse IMO is the epithelial PCR-volume DNA of Guede's founf on/in Kercher's genitals at autopsy, and Guede's disgusting attempts to claim that he and Kercher had had a pre-arranged "hook up" which had involved genital touching (prior, of course, to Guede finishing that portion of the evening and going off to take a dump).

 

[LondonJohn]

As far as I'm aware, the standard pro-guilt fantasy regarding this piece of evidence is the very same fantasy concocted by Guede himself - that he was quietly relieving himself in the large bathroom when Knox and Sollecito burst in and stabbed Kercher; Guede then (per the fantasy) came out of the bathroom to find Sollecito barging past him shouting a racist accusation, and then he (Guede) went into Kercher's room to try to help her (getting his bloody handprint on the pillowcase in the process).

Of course this is all a pile of self-serving bollocks, on the part of both Guede and the Guilters. Even worse IMO is the epithelial PCR-volume DNA of Guede's founf on/in Kercher's genitals at autopsy, and Guede's disgusting attempts to claim that he and Kercher had had a pre-arranged "hook up" which had involved genital touching (prior, of course, to Guede finishing that portion of the evening and going off to take a dump).

On the other hand, I believe that some (many, even?) guilters accept Guede's involvement in some sort of hybrid form: a form which accepts that the bloody palm print (and also his DNA on Kercher's genitals) is evidence of Guede's direct and sordid involvement in Kercher's sexual assault and murder. But still retaining the totally un-evidenced fantasy that it was Knox who inflicted at least one of the fatal knife wounds to the neck.

This constituency of guilters even goes so far as to credit Guede with his "honesty" for "owning his crime" (even though, as we all know well, he had zero option of claiming non-guilt owing to the catastrophic evidence of his guilt). And as the science-literate amongst us have known since around 2010 onwards, it's obvious that all of the credible, reliable evidence in this case is wholly compatible with Guede carrying out the sexual assault and murder all by himself. And that there never was an iota of credible. reliable evidence of either Knox's or Sollecito's participation in any way - but the incompetent and unlawful lower courts dragged things out far longer than should have been neccesary.

 

[Stacyhs]

As far as I'm aware, the standard pro-guilt fantasy regarding this piece of evidence is the very same fantasy concocted by Guede himself - that he was quietly relieving himself in the large bathroom when Knox and Sollecito burst in and stabbed Kercher; Guede then (per the fantasy) came out of the bathroom to find Sollecito barging past him shouting a racist accusation, and then he (Guede) went into Kercher's room to try to help her (getting his bloody handprint on the pillowcase in the process).

Of course this is all a pile of self-serving bollocks, on the part of both Guede and the Guilters. Even worse IMO is the epithelial PCR-volume DNA of Guede's founf on/in Kercher's genitals at autopsy, and Guede's disgusting attempts to claim that he and Kercher had had a pre-arranged "hook up" which had involved genital touching (prior, of course, to Guede finishing that portion of the evening and going off to take a dump).

The handprint was under her body so there is no way it got on that pillow after it was placed under her hips. It was placed there to facilitate the sexual assault.

 

[Numbers]

A flagrant lie. The Nencini trial showed conclusively that Stefanoni did lodge the raw material with the court. Conti & Vecchiotti were less than truthful when they claimed they were not allowed to have it. As Nencini points out (read the MR) all they had to do was make an application for it. This is the umpty-nineth time I have pointed out this matter of fact yet it seems to be part of the Knox fan club catechism to keep repeating it like a religious article of faith. The only way Knox could be innocent is if Stefanoni is guilty, is the warped reasoning.

If there is any truth to your statement, produce the evidence from the Nencini trial that demonstrates that truth. Remember, the raw data is the electronically recorded files that document the DNA profile runs, not merely the electropherogram (the graph or chart obtained from an analysis of the electronically recorded raw data).

It's well-known that Stefanoni refused to turn over copies of the raw data files to the defense beginning at the GUP (preliminary hearing) stage and continued to refuse to turn them over to the defense or to the court-appointed experts, Conti and Vecchiotti. Stefanoni had written a letter to the GUP judge, IIRC, stating that asking her to turn over the copies of the raw data was to accuse her of cheating.

Some of Stefanoni's testimony and/or written lab records were false. For example, she had lab records showing that she had quantified samples 36 A, B, and C as well as D, E, F and G with quantitative PCR (Real Time PCR), showing that only samples A and B tested positive for DNA, but without quantitative results shown. (Page 78 of the RTIGF, page 56 of C&V translation; Sample 36B is the knife blade sample alleged to be Kercher's profile.) However, Stefanoni's paperwork shows that another quantification was conducted on Samples 36 A, B, and C using the Qubit Fluorometer, which may be less capable of detecting extremely low concentrations of DNA than the quantitative PCR method. The quantitative results were: for Sample 36 A, 0.08 ng/ul, 36 B, too low to detect, and 36 C, too low to detect. The following excerpts are from pages 58 and 59 of the C&V report translation:

From this, it can be inferred that what is reported on page 78 of the RTIGF (and confirmed in the GUP questioning, page 178, where it is claimed that quantification was performed using Real Time and that quantification of the Y [chromosome] was not carried out) is not consistent with what was performed in reality. In fact, the tables show that quantification of the DNA extracted from all the samples taken from Exhibit 36 was carried out using the 770 Sequence Detector ABI PRISM™ equipment (Applied Biosystems); in contrast, it is apparent from the attached cards that the aforementioned method was only performed on samples D-E-F-G. A different method was employed for samples A-B-C using the Qubit
Fluorometer™, and not mentioned in the final Technical Report, as would have been due and correct.

As regards the quantification of sample A (knife handle) the results obtained with the Qubit Fluorimeter™ show that the concentration of DNA in this sample was equal to 0.08 ng/μl. Taking into account that the “quantity of extract” was 50 μl (c.f. SAL), and multiplying 0.08 ng/μl x 50 μl, the total [amount] of DNA was equal to 4 ng: certainly a significant quantity, which allowed sample A to be considered positive to quantification.

On the other hand, it is not possible to comprehend the criteria adopted in the assessment of the positive quantification result for sample B and the negative result for 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 equal to 0.2 ng/μl), but below 0.08 ng/μl, a value which the Fluorimeter detected for sample A.

Nor is it comprehensible, considering the negative results on sample B, what Dr. Stefanoni reported during 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).

It is clear from the Conti - Vecchiotti report excerpts quoted above that Stefanoni acted and reported in regard to Sample 36B in ways that are not compatible with the role of an honest scientific forensics worker. Thus, one can understand her refusal to turn over the raw DNA profile data files as an act of self-defense from being accused of cheating, as she wrote, by someone who apparently was either cheating or being highly incompetent.

Source: https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...anslation-of-the-conti-vecchiotti-report2.pdf

 

[Vixen]

If there is any truth to your statement, produce the evidence from the Nencini trial that demonstrates that truth. Remember, the raw data is the electronically recorded files that document the DNA profile runs, not merely the electropherogram (the graph or chart obtained from an analysis of the electronically recorded raw data).

It's well-known that Stefanoni refused to turn over copies of the raw data files to the defense beginning at the GUP (preliminary hearing) stage and continued to refuse to turn them over to the defense or to the court-appointed experts, Conti and Vecchiotti. Stefanoni had written a letter to the GUP judge, IIRC, stating that asking her to turn over the copies of the raw data was to accuse her of cheating.

Some of Stefanoni's testimony and/or written lab records were false. For example, she had lab records showing that she had quantified samples 36 A, B, and C as well as D, E, F and G with quantitative PCR (Real Time PCR), showing that only samples A and B tested positive for DNA, but without quantitative results shown. (Page 78 of the RTIGF, page 56 of C&V translation; Sample 36B is the knife blade sample alleged to be Kercher's profile.) However, Stefanoni's paperwork shows that another quantification was conducted on Samples 36 A, B, and C using the Qubit Fluorometer, which may be less capable of detecting extremely low concentrations of DNA than the quantitative PCR method. The quantitative results were: for Sample 36 A, 0.08 ng/ul, 36 B, too low to detect, and 36 C, too low to detect. The following excerpts are from pages 58 and 59 of the C&V report translation:





It is clear from the Conti - Vecchiotti report excerpts quoted above that Stefanoni acted and reported in regard to Sample 36B in ways that are not compatible with the role of an honest scientific forensics worker. Thus, one can understand her refusal to turn over the raw DNA profile data files as an act of self-defense from being accused of cheating, as she wrote, by someone who apparently was either cheating or being highly incompetent.

Source: https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...anslation-of-the-conti-vecchiotti-report2.pdf

I provided the exact Nencini quote a couple of weeks ago. Are you suggesting a senior judge at Florence Court is being willfully fraudulent with the aim of subverting justice?

 

[Vixen]

"1. Guede's correctly-identified palm print in Kercher's blood on the pillowcase"

This is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against RG, imo. I wonder what fantastical explanation Vixen could provide us with to explain that.

Guede has never denied being there. As Micheli and Giordani confirmed, there were at least three murderers present. This conclusion is based on objective scientific data and other circumstantial evidence, such as footprints and mixed DNA. You have this weird logic of 'its either/or' as if you are in charge of the parameters and not the courts.

 

[Vixen]

Actually, what did Guede in was his DNA inside Meredith, his bloody palm print, his bloody shoe prints and his DNA in Meredith's blood on her handbag. So if you want to argue incompetence implicating Guede, then please explain how their incompetence resulted in this evidence.


During one of your funnier moments you claimed to be "impartial, neutral and entirely objective". I remind you I cited eight (8) things the SP did wrong wrt the clasp and asked for you to explain the list if not incompetence and you ignored it. Well, here's the list again... either justify all of the mistakes or admit they were incompetent and compromised the evidence. Let's see if you do reality.

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?

Defence soundbites. Even Kohberger's lawyer had those lined up, had it gone to trial.

 

[Vixen]

How was the profile of two as-yet-unidentified males also found on Kercher's bra clasp, Vixen? Looking forward (with popcorn) to your attempted response.

Er, as a crime scene is not a hospital ward or a sterile laboratory, Criminal Law standards is that DNA should be at least 11 allele markers for it to be acceptabe as evidence. Some background noise is always present in house dust, for example, which includes shed skin cells and hairs, etc., so the presence of unidentified male Y-chromosome background noise is perfectly par for the course. It really doesn't cancel out IDENTIFIED DNA as being the FULL DNA PROFILE of Sollecito on the bra clasp. As another example, both Guede's and Knox' DNA fragments (6-alleles or so) were on Mez' bra fabric. One of Knox' counsel walked off the case after this result came through*. But this is not up to criminal law standard, which is why it is not evidence.


*A defence lawyer cannot ethically represent someone they know - or strongly suspect - to be guilty.

 

[Vixen]

This has now been explained to you patiently and in detail numerous times. One can only conclude either that you're too ignorant of the required scientific knowledge to understand the reasoning, or that you doggedly refuse to understand the reasoning.

(Four quick (and non-exhaustive, btw) hints for your attempted comprehension:
1. Guede's correctly-identified palm print in Kercher's blood on the pillowcase
2. Guede's clearly (and correctly) identified shoeprints in Kercher's blood in the hallway of the cottage
3. Guede's easily disproven attempt at an alibi, in which he went out dancing in a Perugia bar within a couple of hours of the murder (when he later claimed to have been traumatised by "witnessing the aftermath" of the murder and feared he'd be framed for it)
4. Guede's epithelial DNA - at regular PCR levels, and recovered from the body by a competent clinician, Dr Lalli - found in/on Kercher's genital area.)

Another one who doesn't do logic. How many people can you see in this police reconstruction?

Don't tell us: "IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!"

 

[Vixen]

If you really don't understand that the very standards of forensic proof and standards of collection/storage/handling of forensic evidence were all created and evolved with the full and active participation of academic experts... there is no hope. I guess one has to have a proper understanding of academia and its (entirely healthy and appropriate) interaction with government and law enforcement. It's a shame that your post is so profoundly lacking in any such understanding.

Oh dear. Do have a look at the following two statements: (1) The full DNA profile of Raffaele Sollecito was found on the murder victim's underwear. (2) The DNA on the bra clasp might have got there by contamination; for example, a transfer of Sollecito's DNA trace on the door frame via the latex glove of a forensic police officer. Think about it. Now, which one of these is based on (a) hard, objective, neutral, scientific, measurable, observable fact, and as witnessed by a genetic expert defence witness? And which one of these statements is pure conjecture, and an abstract hypothethical what-if imaginary scenario? Got it?