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

[acbytesla]

The score is not zero. It would be zero is that was just one trivial stain identical to many others, with a 100 possible and probable banal origins, for which you can draw probable scenarios.
But this is a set bare footprints, originated by some extremely unusual event; moreover they are at a murder scene where there are other bare footprints proven to be in diluted blood; other luminol traces yielding mixed victim's+suspect's DNA in a room where they were not supposed to enter (and where a break appears to be staged); where the murderer(s) obviously washed themselves in a bathroom (barefoot); where there are other traces of mixed-DNA blood (proven presence of both suspect's+victim's blood); where there is obvious evidence of cleanup (clean floor with stained and wet bathmat, soaked towels, shoeprint washed away etc.); and where there is no alternative substance that would be positive to luminol (even less a substance that would be positive to luminol but not positive at TMB).

An also scientific literature (and manuals) that say: TMB may not work on diluted stains.

So sorry, the score is not zero.

You amuse me Machiavelli. You are arguing for stupidity, Machiavelli. You are saying the earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around the moon. Not really surprising.

NO the score is less than ZERO. The simple fact that the crack, I mean joke scientific police of Perugia actually conducted the multiple step process like forensic scientists worldwide demonstrates how it is done.

Testing for blood is a MULTIPLE STEP PROCESS, a minimum of two with one being a confirmatory test. False positives are common with pretty much all the presumptive testing methods and false negatives are rare. This is why it is recommended that two presumptive tests be performed before the more costly confirmatory test. It is assumed that a negative reaction from any of of the presumptive color tests Benzidine, Phenolphthalein, O-Tolidine, Tetramethylbenzidine, Leucomalachite Green that a technician can assume that the sample is not blood. A positive test from these means that that tech can conclude that it is "presumptively" positive and then perform the necessary confirmatory test.

The simple fact that the morons in Perugia did not perform the REQUIRED confirmatory blood test means that they are willing to accept that their negative TMB test is correct and the world can ASSUME it is NOT BLOOD.

BTW, the bare footprints were not originated by an extremely unusual event. We have no idea what originated the bare footprints. POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC, my friend. You are drawing a false causal link.

The simple truth is that we can assume that
WITHOUT A POSITIVE CONFIRMATORY TEST....A NEGATIVE PRESUMPTIVE TEST is AUTHORITATIVE.

So that means:

BLOOD FINAL
NEGATIVE ..... 67
POSITIVE ... 7

 

[MDDVS]

If one test is enough, what's the point in doing two?

 

[LondonJohn]

I might have; but it would have been nice if you avoided gratuitous attempts of being condescending and derogatory (disruptive) about other posters. Especially if your point are based on claims about alleged others' lack of scientific culture.

So if you "might have", might I hear them....?

Excellent.

Good. Sorry you had to stop tweeting when you started to hear things you didn't want to hear......

The Carabinieri did not speak at all about "validation".
They talked about a "recommendation" and they said exactly the same thing Stefanoni said. Actually, they gave exaclty the same answer of Stefanoni, to basically the same question.
They said the procedure must be a "compromise" between strategies recommended to increase realiability and strategies to have practicability.
They said they performed two amplifications, instead of three or more, because they assessed that was te number of tests they could do.
Stafanoni said the same: she planned just one amplification, because with the equipment she had, she assessed that was the number of tests she could do.

This is a lie, pure and simple. The Carabinieri experts said unequivocally that at least two separate amplifications/tests are required to validate low-template DNA matches. You're lying if you claim otherwise.

I wish to recall you that your insulting of Stefanoni is unjustified and baseless, actually defamatory.

Hahahahahaha. Yeah, she did everything scrupulously by the book and with utmost integrity. I'd forgotten that

hmmm.... sure?
(And the "difference beween catalyzer and catalyst"? The catalyzer peroxide...?)

Yes, sure. I'll take it that you're withdrawing that lie then. And the catalyser refers to the substance involved in the catalysis reaction. But if you want to quibble about inconsequential definitions of terms, then I'll be forced to assume that you want to avoid talking about the matters of real importance regarding the forensic elements in this case. Shame really......

 

[Machiavelli]

Just so that you can take care of it in one post, Machiavelli....

What do you think of Andrea Vogt's presumed acceptance as valid and admissible in the Nencini court of the Conti & Vecchiotti report commissioned by the Hellmann court?
(...)

Admissible, it's certainly admissible.
But "credible" or "reliable", or "valid".... that would be another story.

 

[Mary_H]

I have been sleeping 5 hours over the last 72 hours.
Side effects do not include a repeated redaction and adjustment of multiple false testimonies accusing innocents.

Your interrogators were probably nicer than Amanda's.

 

[acbytesla]

If one test is enough, what's the point in doing two?

precisely..

 

[LondonJohn]

Admissible, it's certainly admissible.
But "credible" or "reliable", or "valid".... that would be another story.

But how about the other part of the question though: your opinion on Daniele Spisso's writings about this case. Do you rate him? Personally, I find his writing horribly biased, verbose and packed with tortured logic. But what do YOU think...?

 

[LondonJohn]

precisely..

One test is not enough. End. Of. Story.

Anyway, definitely overdue time for bed. Even though there's a decent (if mistake-riddled) NFL game going on.

Heavens, it's 4.18am in Italy...........

 

[MDDVS]

precisely..

I was actually refering to the DNA tests/amplifications but the same question is valid for lhe blood tests of course. The discussion around the blood tests is ridiculous because no confirmatory test was performed. It's impossible to know if it was blood or not but most probably it wasn't.

 

[acbytesla]

One test is not enough. End. Of. Story.

Anyway, definitely overdue time for bed. Even though there's a decent (if mistake-riddled) NFL game going on.

Heavens, it's 4.18am in Italy...........

Who's playing tonight??

 

[Bill Williams]

Just so that you can take care of it in one post, Machiavelli....

What do you think of Andrea Vogt's presumed acceptance as valid and admissible in the Nencini court of the Conti & Vecchiotti report commissioned by the Hellmann court?
(...)

Admissible, it's certainly admissible.
But "credible" or "reliable", or "valid".... that would be another story.

.... a story you seem reluctant to tell.... is Andrea Vogt an "approximate reporter"?

Did not the RIS Carabinieri just confirm the essence of C&V to Nencini's court?

 

[acbytesla]

I was actually refering to the DNA tests/amplifications but the same question is valid for lhe blood tests of course. The discussion around the blood tests is ridiculous because no confirmatory test was performed. It's impossible to know if it was blood or not but most probably it wasn't.

Fair enough... A negative TMB test means that we can presume it wasn't blood. And without additional information, that is the right thing to do. That is the very definition of a presumptive test.

 

[Strozzi]

I have been sleeping 5 hours over the last 72 hours.
Side effects do not include a repeated redaction and adjustment of multiple false testimonies accusing innocents.

Machiavelli, I am sorry you have not gotten much sleep in the last few days. I hope you are able to rest well tonight

I note you have not developed illusions or false memories. But I would like to point out several things:

Your housemate/friend was not brutally murdered by a stanger (of which you are innocent).

You are not trying to function in a language in which you have elementary communication skills.

You are not in an interrogation room with manipulative adult police detectives telling you you are a liar, or that a friend has changed his account and says you were not where you said/believed you were 3 nights ago.

You do not have shouting police holding your cell phone in your face claiming that you did meet with the person and are lying about it.

You do not have police shouting at you that "he is the one. He is the killer!"

You do not have shouting police tell you that if you won't tell the truth you will go to prison for 30 years and never see your family again.

You do not have an older woman translator tell you that you were there but are traumatized and just don't remember it, but you were there.

You don't have a policewoman standing in back of you hitting you from behind.

 

[Bill Williams]

Admissible, it's certainly admissible.
But "credible" or "reliable", or "valid".... that would be another story.

But how about the other part of the question though: your opinion on Daniele Spisso's writings about this case. Do you rate him? Personally, I find his writing horribly biased, verbose and packed with tortured logic. But what do YOU think...?

Apologies, LondonJohn... I hijacked your question. I gave Machiavelli a chance to dosey-doe, and sashay to the left... it won't happen again.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have been sleeping 5 hours over the last 72 hours.
Side effects do not include a repeated redaction and adjustment of multiple false testimonies accusing innocents.

Your interrogators were probably nicer than Amanda's.

LOL.

Has anyone hit Machiavelli on the back of the head? If he starts calling people close to him, "approximate reporter," I cannot be held accountable...

 

[Machiavelli]

Good. Sorry you had to stop tweeting when you started to hear things you didn't want to hear......

I appreciated all of what I heard and everything rang pleasant to me (except for Sollecito's whines).

I never stopped tweeting.
But I had problems to actually send the tweets. I have problems with the duration of internet connection inside that courtroom. Most journalists go in the press room, I don't want to use the press room, where there is excellent connection ans wi-fi; I like to be in medias res, but I noticed internet connection inside that courtroom doesn't last at some hours (the place is a kind of bunker). At a certain moment in order to send the tweets I needed to walk out the room, in the corridoors area I could connect with no interruptions.

This is a lie, pure and simple. The Carabinieri experts said unequivocally that at least two separate amplifications/tests are required to validate low-template DNA matches. You're lying if you claim otherwise.

The Carabinieri never, never used the word "validate" nor a concept remotely equivalent to what you suggest. I am reporting exactly what the experts said.
And what they said, is exactly the same thing Stefanoni said four years ago.

Moreover, they explained a bit further the reason why two or more profiles are used on low template samples, and the meaning of crossing and comparing them.

From their work it comes out that in fact the impact and meaning of this procedure, it's something that would actually depend on the quality of the profiles themselves. In other words, low template samples could render profiles that are more like blurred photos because of increased stocastic phenomenons, but in practice, it's not that they are necessarily, always blurred and uncertain; when you extract a DNA profile sequence, in fact you may immediately notice if the sequence is a clear photo or a blurred one, which would require crossing with further amplification in order to extract a certain profile.

Hahahahahaha. Yeah, she did everything scrupulously by the book and with utmost integrity. I'd forgotten that

Besides this, you are just defamatory if you make the wild unsupported assertion she is not a doctor.

Yes, sure. I'll take it that you're withdrawing that lie then. And the catalyser refers to the substance involved in the catalysis reaction. But if you want to quibble about inconsequential definitions of terms, then I'll be forced to assume that you want to avoid talking about the matters of real importance regarding the forensic elements in this case. Shame really......

I'm afraid that you are not getting out of this...

 

[Bill Williams]

I'll go you one better, Mary_H. Can Machiavelli name one. While he's at it he might name a scientist who supports his claim that Amanda Knox can choose not to sleep, and can avoid the side effects of such a decision.

I have been sleeping 5 hours over the last 72 hours.
Side effects do not include a repeated redaction and adjustment of multiple false testimonies accusing innocents.

Your Honour, I ask that you direct the witness to answer the question. Mary_H's question too. One name will suffice, and please tell him it cannot be Semi-Dr. Sefanoni....

(Seriously, Machiavelli - get some sleep.)

 

[Machiavelli]

.... a story you seem reluctant to tell.... is Andrea Vogt an "approximate reporter"?

I am quite sick about your never ending attempts of using human shields, urging ad personam judgments, involving unrelated people, instead of caring about facts and arguments. I witness events myself, not trough Andrea Vogt nor others, and I intend to speak about facts directly.

Did not the RIS Carabinieri just confirm the essence of C&V to Nencini's court?

Not even in your dreams.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - what is Andrea Vogt's position now on the C&V report? Does this make her an "approximate reporter," like Barbie Nadeau?

 

[Bill Williams]

I am quite sick about your never ending attempts of using human shields, urging ad personam judgments, involving unrelated people, instead of caring about facts and arguments. I witness events myself, not trough Andrea Vogt nor others, and I intend to speak about facts directly.

So, things between you two are not going well, then..... you answered about Barbie Nadeau.....