• 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.
Machiavelli said:
In detail...? You should read it. You'll have time to do so. Knox will make it available to you.
If people don't find the report, someone will post it here over the next days.

In summary, the trace has extremely high probability of being Knox's profile (practical certainty) and extremely low probability (basically zero) of being from one of the other three individuals.
The fact that the profile extraction was non-repeateble was not a problem for the RIS: just like Novelli, they made a bio-statystical probability calculation on the single result.
The total amount still available for the RIS was in the magnitude of 80-100 picograms (they called correct the quantization made by Vecchiotti in her report, of 5 picograms per microlitre - which is not what she said in her testimony, however, as she spoke of 5 picograms as overall amount).

There is nothing more to add actually.
If there is anything else to say (about Vecchiotti, Novelli, ecc), Berti and Barni will say that in their testimony.
Click to expand...


Ah, you don't get it. I'm not questioning whether the RIS are sure they found Knox's DNA in the sample - I'm sure they did, just as I'm actually confident that not-a-doctor Stefanoni "found" Meredith's DNA on 36B.

The question is whether that DNA was reliably present at those spots on the knife at the time when it was seized by the police. In other words, is it reliable probative evidence?

And hmmmm. So someone on the prosecution or victim side passed you the report, huh? Very interesting. You still claiming you're unconnected to the case.....?

(PS: FYI, I don't know Knox or any member of her family, or any member of her Seattle support group, or any member of Gogerty Marriott. I certainly do not expect to get passed any privileged, confidential information.)
 
LondonJohn said:
But therein lies the problem....

Vogt perhaps needs to learn that news reportage should be just that: reportage. It's for the reader to draw inferences or have opinions. It's the job of the reporter to present the facts. Otherwise it's an op-ed piece, which is the trap Vogt continually falls into.

Vogt is essentially saying here: "I personally think that Knox was telling the truth when she talked about being abused in prison; that's why I'm writing this piece, and presenting it in the way it's being presented". That's not what news reporters do. News reporters report events without injecting their own prejudices or opinions onto them. Unless Vogt is writing non-news fluff like travel articles, restaurant reviews or interviews with TV stars, she should know it's a massive no-no to even mention the personal pronoun "I" within an article, let alone to express a personal opinion.

Perhaps that's one of the reasons why she never gets published......
Click to expand...

Unfortunately what AV considers proper reporting methods is all too common in the so-called "mainstream media" in the USA today. ABC, CBS, & NBC routinely run pieces by their reporters full of opinion or the relaying of another's opinion rather than just the facts - i.e. "the news".
 
LondonJohn said:
(..)
(PS for Machiavelli: DNA is a solid at room temperature and normal pressure, which is why its quantity in solution is expressed in mass-per-unit-volume terms :))
Click to expand...

LJ, you know what you stated is very embarassing to you.
All medicaments/drugs are always expressed in mass units, no matter if they are liquid, solid or gasses, in Italy and Continental Europe.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah, you don't get it. I'm not questioning whether the RIS are sure they found Knox's DNA in the sample - I'm sure they did, just as I'm actually confident that not-a-doctor Stefanoni "found" Meredith's DNA on 36B.
Click to expand...

Why this unfounded derogatory attitude against Dr. Stefanoni?

The truth: Stefanoni worked eight years as researcher at the University Federico II of Naples before entering the police lab; she would have titles close to a fellow in the UK, rather than just a PhD.
 
Machiavelli said:
Why this unfounded derogatory attitude against Dr. Stefanoni?

The truth: Stefanoni worked eight years as researcher at the University Federico II of Naples before entering the police lab; she would have titles close to a fellow in the UK, rather than just a PhD.
Click to expand...

Er. Wouldn't she have to have an actual PhD?
 
So, did the RIS hide the amplification curves and the control amplifications and egrams, just like stefanoni?
 
Diocletus said:
Er. Wouldn't she have to have an actual PhD?
Click to expand...

Yes but in Italy, PhD is not used as a title. You may see it only on someone's curriculum. But it's not used, not even on buisness cards.
It is normally just not considered.
However, a person who works as a 'researcher' in a university in fact has a PhD.
 
Machiavelli said:
Yes but in Italy, PhD is not used as a title. You may see it only on someone's curriculum. But it's not used, not even on buisness cards.
It is normally just not considered.
However, a person who works as a 'researcher' in a university in fact has a PhD.
Click to expand...

Stefanoni does not have a PhD, correct?

Around here, we call someone who works as a researcher for 8 years without getting a phD a "researcher"
 
Machiavelli said:
Yes but in Italy, PhD is not used as a title. You may see it only on someone's curriculum. But it's not used, not even on buisness cards.
Click to expand...

Si. That's because people call themselves "doctor" when the get an undergrad degree.
 
Diocletus said:
Stefanoni does not have a PhD, correct?

Around here, we call someone who works as a researcher for 8 years without getting a phD a "researcher"
Click to expand...

Nobody in Italy works for 8 years in a university without getting a PhD.
The term 'resercher' is used extensively, for any university personnell, including professors, who are just not fellows yet.
 
Diocletus said:
Try to focus on what I have said. A criminal does not become innocent simply because the police have hit him. However, the information that the police have obtained by violating the prisoners right becomes unusable. Otherwise, the police would be rewarded for violating the persons rights. If the evidence from the illegal interrogation is thus excluded, guilt can still be established with other evidence, obtained legally.
There is one situation where a person would be made innocent as a consequence of the police misconduct, and that is the case where the evidence against the person is solely a result of the authorities' illegal conduct. Indeed, this is the situation with the callunia charge against Knox. She is completely innocent because the police illegally hit her.
Click to expand...
.
In my opinion, it is not sufficient to just rule the interrogation inadmissible. A false confession, even if inadmissible, taints everyone that becomes aware of it, the police and the evidence they consider or fail to consider, the witnesses and their testimony, the media, even the friends of the accused. The false confession is the small ball of snow that starts rolling at the top of the hill and turns into an avalanche.

This case is a text book example.
.
 
LondonJohn said:
I don't think I'm optimistic. Remember that a key plank of C/V's argument for not DNA-testing 36I was that any results would be essentially meaningless. That's because they already knew there were only super-low-template quantities of DNA on that sample, and the knife had already been mishandled enough for any super-low-template DNA testing to be rendered worthless on account of potential contamination.

The SC argument was: if it can be tested, let's have it tested. But even though it's shown Knox's DNA in minute quantities on the very edge of detection limits - and is thus of no value to the prosecution in any case - it's still intellectually correct to argue that the result is unreliable and of no evidential worth. Which is what C&V thought in the first place. And, for the same reason, the alleged extra-low-template quantity of Meredith's DNA on 36B should also be excluded - as indeed C/V concluded.
Click to expand...

I interpreted the trace-I not being tested was also because H was tested. H was the similar location and it wasn't blood, it wasn't anything.
So "I" wasn't needed, the crevice of that area was tested with H.
just my interpretation of the C&V report.

From the perspective of determining whether or not it was the murder weapon, finding blood of the victim, or bleach, was the big question to answer.
Trace H answered that question.

Results for "I" now confirms the same, imo.

Going into the non-blood DNA debate is another matter of Stefonani's credibility and lab work being marginal, but it isn't needed to determine if the Knife was involved in the murder any more, it wasn't obviously.
 
Diocletus said:
Si. That's because people call themselves "doctor" when the get an undergrad degree.
Click to expand...

In the Italian tradition bachelor degree doesn't exist. The "short-term" courses (bachelors) exist now in Italy but they are a very recent reform.

People do not call "themselves": they are called so by statute.
The term "doctor" was adopted in year 1088 a.C., officialized in 1317, at the University of Bologna, to indicate a laureate. The only other title recognized was Professor; later some other titles were recognized (Avvocato, Ingegnere) and this belongs to the formal language use.
The use od "Dr" to indicate a "PhD" title (and the PhD acronym itself) is something developed much later, in the Anglo-Saxon world, is in fact somehow calqued from a tradition which was already existing, and indicates something else.
But the use for "Dr" as a laureate in Bologna is the original one. The Italian universities have been keeping this traditional naming for centuries without interruption.
 
Machiavelli said:
Bs. Mignini admitted ... ? Total crap.
The truth:
1) Amanda Knox's interrogation lasted less than three hours (Saul Kassin thinks she was questioned for 14 hours).
2) she delivered her spontaneous statement without any interrogation, without any questioning.
3) Anna Donnino witnessed to both the interrogation and the statement.
4) Knox wrote her hand written memoirs without any questioning, voluntarily, and on her own initiative.
5) She never claimed a coerced confession, always a false memory syndrome.
6) She told a load of crap of different kinds outside any interrogation, before her interrogation and after, unrelated to any question and unrelated to any pressure, just purely manipulative and deceptive, as I mentioned.
Click to expand...

Nice try, Machiavelli.

This is not the version of events as told by Mignini himself to Drew Griffin. If I was not celebrating the feast of the dead right now I would correct you at length, with simple cut and pastes from Mignini himself, as told to Drew Griffin.

You need to coordinate with him better before trying to defend him,
 
Machiavelli said:
In the Italian tradition bachelor degree doesn't exist. The "short-term" courses (bachelors) exist now in Italy but they are a very recent reform.

People do not call "themselves": they are called so by statute.
The term "doctor" was adopted in year 1088 a.C., officialized in 1317, at the University of Bologna, to indicate a laureate. The only other title recognized was Professor; later some other titles were recognized (Avvocato, Ingegnere) and this belongs to the formal language use.
The use od "Dr" to indicate a "PhD" title (and the PhD acronym itself) is something developed much later, in the Anglo-Saxon world, is in fact somehow calqued from a tradition which was already existing, and indicates something else.
But the use for "Dr" as a laureate in Bologna is the original one. The Italian universities have been keeping this traditional naming for centuries without interruption.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised the EU hasn't put a stop to this misrepresentation. It's like calling a Tokaj a Tokai. Or a Budweiser a Budweis.

But let's clear this up. Does stefanoni have a PhD? If not, I propose that we call her an Italo-Doctor, or a Doctor*, or maybe a Researcher. Perhaps we can call her a Bologna-Doctor. Or, maybe just a phony-bologna.
 
Last edited:
alike and not alike

moodstream said:
Hence, since the defense does not object to the finding of Knox's DNA, how can they call foul when it comes to Ms Kercher's?
Click to expand...
I admit to being puzzled by Ghirga's words as quoted in your link. However, my view is that Amanda's profile on the knife blade is every bit as unreliable as Meredith's in the sense that both are low template DNA. I take a hard line against using low template DNA in criminal trials. One possible difference between the two is that Stefanoni concentrated her sample, and I think that this is a likely point where contamination might occur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom