• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoseMontague said:
Yep, yep. Anybody watching the evidence collection would come to the same conclusion. The possibility is high, certainly high enough for reasonable doubt.
Anybody seeing the state of Meredith's room 46 days later would also come to the same reasonable conclusion. It could have been The Three Stooges that pointed out what is obvious, the point is that it is simply obvious.
Click to expand...

Speaking of "high", I've come to the conclusion that the evidence collection cops were probably high. I think they were having a drug party with a CSI theme.
 
Machiavelli said:
You.

.

Yes, and I explained that "themes" does NOT mean ritual-murder scenario.

The word "themes" does NOT change the fact that the scenario proposed is only a sex-party (sex-game) among drugged students that went out of control. Not a ritualistic-murder.
Click to expand...

Yes,, I know you gave it the good old college try to "explain" your mistake.

Lastly, are you calling Barbie Nadeau a liar?
 
There is no more proof for a drug fueled sex party, whatever that is, than there is for a satanic rite.

I really don't understand why it is so important as whether Mignini did or did not at some point use the precise terms satanic, rite, or satanic rite.

The more important issue is the concept of the three people he believes murdered Meredith getting together for the crime or just getting together.

There is no evidence that the three were ever together before they brought Rudy into the court room, as Raf pointed out at the time.

Arguing over the exact terms used seems hugely secondary to showing that they ever were together. Where is the video the police collected showing them walking around that evening and night. It is impossible to believe that the three were able to avoid being captured on video during the day of the first.
 
davefoc said:
It seems like there are various perhaps overlapping concepts when the appropriateness of a sample for testing is being discussed.

The absolute mass
Based on what I understood from the C & V report the mass is determined by multiplying the mass concentration with the total mass of material analyzed.

The mass concentration
As I recall this is measured in micrograms per microliter.
Click to expand...

They take the sample and put it through the extraction process which yields the DNA in buffer and reagent (the reacting chemicals that do all the cool stuff light light up the DNA so it can be counted and analyzed) which is then measured as an amount per microliter. As you posted, multiplying the amount/µL by the volume of that sample will produce the total dry weight of what is in the tube.

RFU
I looked this up on Wikipedia. It seems like a way of determining how much DNA is in the sample by using molecules that glow under ultraviolet light when they are attached to the DNA to be tested. The more glowing the more DNA. It seems like the RFU measurement is closely related to the mass concentration that was mentioned in the C & V report but I haven't seen a way to convert between the measurements if it is even possible.

I am sure that some of the above isn't correct. I was hoping that somebody might correct what I have said and perhaps expand on it a bit.
Click to expand...

RFU is a relative measure, however they generally use the same or similar kits and machines employing (roughly) 1 ng samples and aim for peaks in the 1k-2k range so there's a vague conversion between similar samples, but nothing very precise. It's more relevant in relation to the same sample, i.e. the primary contributor having peaks of 1k RFU compared to peaks (from the same sample) of 150 RFU for instance. When looking for 'stutter' or other artifacts of the measurement process (which aren't actually indications of genetic material you want to measure) they compare the peak heights (or peak areas) to help determine what they they should 'call' as actual alleles--this also serves to winnow out environmental contamination. A common standard is 15% (or more) of the major peaks as the threshold to identify a countable peak.

As for converting those RFU amounts into the dry weights of the DNA that was in the sample, as I said earlier there's discussion on that in Massei. You do know (or you should if perform the quantification step or use real-time PCR--unlike Stefanoni with the knife) the amount of DNA in your sample, and if you're looking to determine the amount contributed by multiple people you can figure the ratios. Now here there was disagreement, Tagliabracci said minor contributors would have peaks somewhat disproportionally higher than the amount of DNA they contributed. Stefanoni said it was directly proportional. Thus the bra clasp sample being 1.4 ng if I recall correctly off the top of my head would have been from 140-200 pg, 10%-14% depending on who was right. Massei chose Stefanoni, my guess (and from what I came across reading on this subject) is that Tagliabracci was probably correct.
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
Speaking of "high", I've come to the conclusion that the evidence collection cops were probably high. I think they were having a drug party with a CSI theme.
Click to expand...

Nick Pisa said they could be overheard talking about wanting some cocaine in the evidence collection videos.
 
Last edited:
Novelli and the CSC

Machiavelli said:
Maybe you were somewhere else when Conti and Vecchiotti's "points" were debunked by Comodi, Stefanoni, Novelli, by posters, by the Supreme Court, by science and common sense.
Click to expand...
Dr. Novelli's testimony sits uneasily next to what he and his coauthors wrote in a journal article, "Very few laboratories perform low template DNA typing properly, because it requires dedicated facilities and great experience, although there are several published methods for the interpretation of such profiles [80-82].” Stefanoni's lab was not even certified for regular DNA profiling, let alone low template profiling.

Novelli's testimony was also not consonant with what he indicated in the Busco case.
{quote}The CSC wrote, “Prof. Novelli had agreed that there are protocols and recommendations, but added that first of all the operator had to contribute his common sense (ud. 6.9.2011, p. Transcription 59.), otherwise it put in question all the DNA analysis done from 1986 onwards.” Does the CSC really believe that poor technique is insufficient ground for considering the evidence to be unreliable? The laws governing forensic evidence must set the correct incentives in any criminal justice system. If evidence collection procedures are flawed yet the evidence is accepted anyway, there is no impetus to collect it properly: The same types of errors may convict innocent persons in other cases. In the Busco case, Professor Novelli sounded a more cautious note than in the present one: “According to Professor Giuseppe Novelli, ordinarius of genetics at Tor Vergata, ‘There were contaminations among items and for [=of?] the analyses on the corsage and on the bra. The chain of custody of the items did not respect national and international standards for the conservation of items.’” What common sense actually suggests is that the standards were put into place to avoid generating a misleading result and that if one violates a particular protocol there should be a solid, clearly defined reason. The CSC provided none; on the contrary, its words are a smokescreen rather than an argument. {end quote}
I seem to recall that some commenters have wondered (with respect to the C-V report) where the international standards for collecting evidence came from. It seems as if Novelli at least acknowledged their existence.

Stefanoni does not understand the basics of how to use gloves, or how easy it is to transfer DNA. Comodi is feckless when it comes to forensics, particularly presumptive blood tests.
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
There is no more proof for a drug fueled sex party, whatever that is, than there is for a satanic rite.

I really don't understand why it is so important as whether Mignini did or did not at some point use the precise terms satanic, rite, or satanic rite.
The more important issue is the concept of the three people he believes murdered Meredith getting together for the crime or just getting together.

There is no evidence that the three were ever together before they brought Rudy into the court room, as Raf pointed out at the time.

Arguing over the exact terms used seems hugely secondary to showing that they ever were together. Where is the video the police collected showing them walking around that evening and night. It is impossible to believe that the three were able to avoid being captured on video during the day of the first.
Click to expand...

Strangely, I agree. I would have dropped this long ago if there wasn't so much stubborn resistance to something that is on the record.... and where someone on this blog-service JREF claims to have evidence to prove otherwise, similarly refuses to post that evidence.

For some reason the issue of the "Satanic Rite" seems to be a line in the sand, necessitating Mignini himself to defend himself publicly in 2013 over it.

I would have also dropped this long ago if Machiavelli had said that Mignini in fact did speculate about a Satanic Rite as a motive for murder, but came upon new information and then and only then speculated about a sex-game gone wrong.

Then again, he also morphed into the alleged "bad relationship" between Meredith and Amanda as the motive. That one did not survive the Massei trial because other than normal household issues, they were friends.

But I agree.... the more important issue is that there is no evidence at all the three of them even got together. The prosecution has always substituted motive-speculation for evidence anyway.
 
halides1 said:
Dr. Novelli's testimony was in conflict with what he and his coauthors wrote in a journal article, "Very few laboratories perform low template DNA typing properly, because it requires dedicated facilities and great experience, although there are several published methods for the interpretation of such profiles [80-82].”

Novelli's testimony was also not consonant with what he indicated in the Busco case. "The CSC wrote, “Prof. Novelli had agreed that there are protocols and recommendations, but added that first of all the operator had to contribute his common sense (ud. 6.9.2011, p. Transcription 59.), otherwise it put in question all the DNA analysis done from 1986 onwards.” Does the CSC really believe that poor technique is insufficient ground for considering the evidence to be unreliable? The laws governing forensic evidence must set the correct incentives in any criminal justice system. If evidence collection procedures are flawed yet the evidence is accepted anyway, there is no impetus to collect it properly: The same types of errors may convict innocent persons in other cases. In the Busco case, Professor Novelli sounded a more cautious note than in the present one: “According to Professor Giuseppe Novelli, ordinarius of genetics at Tor Vergata, ‘There were contaminations among items and for [=of?] the analyses on the corsage and on the bra. The chain of custody of the items did not respect national and international standards for the conservation of items.’” What common sense actually suggests is that the standards were put into place to avoid generating a misleading result and that if one violates a particular protocol there should be a solid, clearly defined reason. The CSC provided none; on the contrary, its words are a smokescreen rather than an argument." I seem to recall that some commenters have wondered (with respect to the C-V report) where the international standards for collecting evidence came from. It seems as if Novelli at least acknowledged their existence.
Click to expand...

Hm. So it seems that Novelli will say anything for money.
 
MichaelB said:
Nick Pisa said they could be overheard talking about wanting some cocaine in the evidence collection videos.
Click to expand...

Hm. So perhaps they were looking for drugs in the cottage, but didn't find any. Too bad they weren't talking about wanting some semen, because they could have found that.
 
Machiavelli said:
Anyway, it seems you still believe The Daily Mirror and anglophone sources suggesting the prosecution proposed a satanic scenario, you believe your own idea tha Mignini must have leaked a "bloody bathroom" picture to a British tabloid. While you don't believe the trial transcripts that prove the opposite, nor the obvious fact that theorieas about the prosecution "using British tabloids are wild and foolish conspiracy theories by any rational mind.
Click to expand...


So Machiavelli, who did release the "bloody bathroom" picture? It wasn't the one taken by the Nikon that was in the case file. Here is the picture of him taking that photo with his little camera:

[imgw=640]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5160[/imgw]


ETA: And where arer the rest of the photos taken by that liffle camera durring an official visit to the crime scene?
 
Last edited:
News from Italy: First knife test, human DNA found

Google Translation, ugh:
Meredith process: what is human DNA found on the knife
TUSCANY - 11/10/2013 - E 'that human DNA found on the knife believed to be the weapon that killed Meredith Kercher. The Court of Appeal of Florence had ordered the expertise to Ris

During the appeal process the trace on the knife considered to be the weapon used to kill Meredith Kercher had not been examined because it was considered insufficient in number. Now the Court of Florence, in front of which takes place the call a (accused Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) decided instead to an expert opinion on that tiny traces of genetic material and examinations conducted by the police of Rome Ris showed that it is human DNA analyzed. Belonging to those who will tell more tests that are taking place in the presence of consultants appointed by all the parties to the proceedings. You have until October 31 for the results. The next hearing in Florence is scheduled for November 6. There will be Amanda Knox, remained in the United States, while there may be Raffaele Sollecito.
Click to expand...

http://www.toscanatv.com/leggi_news?idnews=AA831951

and from TJMK:
Breaking news. La Nazione reports that DNA has been found on the knife and tests to identify it will continue today Friday. Their report and the report of ANSA News Service say it is human DNA. An earlier report by Diggita said it was not yet established whether it is plant, animal or human DNA.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It's truly disturbing how the media still calls it a murder weapon.


I guess the initial tweet saying that it was Amanda's DNA was a little bit confusing. It seems that they're still trying to figure out who's DNA is it. Hopefully we will get the results tonight.
 
Last edited:
snook1 said:
It's truly disturbing how the media still calls it a murder weapon.


I guess the initial tweet saying that it was Amanda's DNA was a little bit confusing. It seems that they're still trying to figure out who's DNa is it. Hopefully we will get the results tonight.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree it is disturbing. And also very confusing. I just took Quenell's breaking news and ran with it (google Italia) - I guess we will await further reports, and the court discussion of Nov. 6...
 
Diocletus said:
This is no big deal. We already knew that there was a small amount of human DNA in that sample.

What will be interesting is how the methods used by the Carbinieri for sequencing will compare to what Stefanoni did.
Click to expand...
I know. But as Quenell on TJMK has it up on his front page top as "BREAKING NEWS" I just thought a little old Google Italia was in order. :rolleyes:
 
From the NAZIONE

Oct. 11 2013, NAZIONE: PROCESSO MEREDITH

The work on the weapon had led to the identification of a small trace of genetic material . From the latest updates revealed that this track is analyzed human DNA .
They are now taking all steps to give some attribution to the genetic code . Exams are held in the presence of consultants appointed by all the parties to the proceedings.
Click to expand...
http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/2013/10/11/964093-processo-meredith-sollecito.shtml
 
Last edited:
Corriere Dell'Umbria is reporting that the knife DNA sample has been attributed to #AmandaKnox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom