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

[Vixen]

My information that the MK murder trial ended well over a decade ago with the acquittal of AK and MK is quite reliable and accurate.

Your opinion about the rest means no more than mine, which is nothing at all. You might as well argue your strong opinions about how Napoleon should have deployed his cavalry at Waterloo.

I see you share the same belief as another poster that criminal law is all to do with semantics of the pantomime type, 'Oh yes he is!'; 'Oh no, he's not!' variety.

A fact remains a fact. It doesn't expire after ten years. And a fact is not dependent on whether you believe it or not.

You may well argue about Russian soldiers hiding in grassy knolls and Napoleon at Waterloo but it won't change the facts just because you declare it does.


.

 

[Vixen]

If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk and the supreme court was so wrong in it's judgement, why has Vixen been constantly unable to respond to the motivation report and the arguments used for the acquittal and has to resort to conspiracies involving the mafia, state department, masons etc to explain the acquittal.

Who said it was a 'slam dunk'? It took at least eight months before formal charges were brought. The trial lasted until 2009 thanks to the courts bending over backwards for Bongiorno's maternity leave, meaning the case was only heard on two days per week. It was 100% fair and based on forensic experts, phone logs, computer logs, luminol and blood analysis, foot and shoe print forensic experts, numerous witness statements, four pathologists, crime scene reconstructionists.

Are you seriously claiming they were all the puppets of the evil prosecutor, Dr. Mignini?


Take a reality check.



.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Do you not see, the facts established in court remain the established facts? For example, it is a fact that Knox was at the murder scene and a fact that Mez' DNA is on the murder weapon blade and AK's DNA on its handle. Etc.

No. It's only a "fact"* that Knox was at the murder scene etc. Not a fact, a "fact". It's a fact that everyone ever wrongly convicted of a crime was convicted of a crime.

* i.e. It's not actually true, even though a court once wrongly decided it was true.

You're just going to have to cling to whatever satisfaction you can get from knowing these two innocent people were once found guilty, because that injustice has long since been corrected.

 

[Vixen]

No. It's only a "fact"* that Knox was at the murder scene etc. Not a fact, a "fact". It's a fact that everyone ever wrongly convicted of a crime was convicted of a crime.

* i.e. It's not actually true, even though a court once wrongly decided it was true.

You're just going to have to cling to whatever satisfaction you can get from knowing these two innocent people were once found guilty, because that injustice has long since been corrected.

Oh really? You know better than literally dozens of highly trained legal boffs?

ETA: Please point to where it is legally stated that it is no longer a fact AK was at the murder scene, bearing in mind the judgment of Masi-Martuscelli in Sollecito's later compo claim, that it is a fact of 'absolute and utter certainty' Knox was there at the murder scene, and he almost certainly was, too.


.



.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh really? You know better than literally dozens of highly trained legal boffs?

Are these legal boffs in the room with us now? If so can you ask them if the innocent pair remain convicted or if their convictions were overturned a decade ago?

 

[Vixen]

Are these legal boffs in the room with us now? If so can you ask them if the innocent pair remain convicted or if their convictions were overturned a decade ago?

Their sentences were annulled but the facts of the case remain.

Or do you believe the phone logs and false alibis have disappeared?



.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

They didn't commit the crime, despite the convoluted horror movie you can't stop playing in your head.

 

[TruthCalls]

It is opinion based on facts proven at the merits trial. In Italy, the judges are obliged to provide a Motivational Report so they have to interpret the facts found as to what they mean, and this does require the use of inference and deduction. It won't always be right but as long as it is 'within the bounds of reasonableness' it is considered acceptable as legally final, even if another judge on another day sees it differently.

The telephone log testimony can be found here:


March 13th and 14th, 2009- testimony by police and translators on CCTV and cellphone traffic (Massei).

• 2009-03-13-Testimony-MC-Barbadori-Moscatelli-Sollecito-DAstolto-Colantone-Donnino-Volturno-Knox.pdf
• 2009-03-14-Testimony-MC-Negri-Trotta-Trifici-Gregori.pdf

From The Murder of Meredith Kercher net

ETA: Some further facts found at trial:

So here it's PROVEN to you that the conclusions made by the court were based on an incorrect understanding of how phone networks work, and as usual, the effort goes in one ear and out the other. Unbelievable.

So no, it's NOT based on proven facts, it's based on a wrong understanding of the technology. And no, it's not even "within the bounds of reasonableness". Their conclusion about why Amanda only called the English number is because they apparently didn't realize Amanda and Meredith ALWAYS talked on Meredith's English phone. And their conclusion regarding the length of the calls, and comparing them to the duration of Filomena's calls was completely wrong... the call duration clock begins AFTER the call connects, and the duration of Filomena's two calls were longer because Amanda answered and talked to Filomena. These are embarrassingly stupid mistakes made by the court yet their conclusions are based on these mistakes.

That you'd conclude this is an "opinion based on facts proven at the merits trial" when I just proved the "facts" assumed by the court were false, suggests either you also don't understand how phone networks work, even when it's explained to you, or your being dishonest. Either way, it's not a good look.

 

[TruthCalls]

Oh really? You know better than literally dozens of highly trained legal boffs?

ETA: Please point to where it is legally stated that it is no longer a fact AK was at the murder scene, bearing in mind the judgment of Masi-Martuscelli in Sollecito's later compo claim, that it is a fact of 'absolute and utter certainty' Knox was there at the murder scene, and he almost certainly was, too.

Please point to where it is legally stated Amanda WAS at the murder scene, and what evidence is used to prove that.

I'll help you... M-B points to Amanda's interrogation statement as it's basis for thinking that. However, as history now tells us, the entire interrogation and it's results are null and void. So, given that, what evidence do you think exists that would prove Amanda was at the scene of the crime AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER. Hint: None exists.

"...almost certainly was, too." sounds like speculation to me. Hmmmm....

 

[TruthCalls]

Their sentences were annulled but the facts of the case remain.

Or do you believe the phone logs and false alibis have disappeared?

The phone logs, as interpreted by the courts, has been shredded. What do you think the logs prove that's so damning for them?

Their is no evidence their alibi was false. The court has no evidence that would prove Amanda and Raffaele weren't at his apartment when Meredith was killed, but there is significant evidence to indicate they were.

 

[Myriad]

I see you share the same belief as another poster that criminal law is all to do with semantics of the pantomime type, 'Oh yes he is!'; 'Oh no, he's not!' variety.

A fact remains a fact. It doesn't expire after ten years. And a fact is not dependent on whether you believe it or not.

I'm glad you understand the fact that AK and RS did not commit the murder that RG committed, and the fact that the Italian court system's final conclusion was that AK and RS did not commit the murder that RG committed, have not expired after over ten years. Nor will they ever.

You may well argue about Russian soldiers hiding in grassy knolls and Napoleon at Waterloo but it won't change the facts just because you declare it does.

I would argue actual facts, like that there were Prussian soldiers, not Russian soldiers, at Waterloo.

You can't weaponize ignorance to change history to your liking. Prussians don't change into Russians, just like AK and RS don't change into murderers, just because you loudly fantasize so.

 

[Numbers]

Here we come to the crux of the matter. Weighing evidence and finding facts. Before the court can come to a verdict it needs to establish the facts of the matter. How do we get to the facts?
...... the acquittal being on an 'insufficient evidence' loophole.

Vixen, I recognize that your opinions on this are essentially fixed and your biases or other issues may prevent you from understanding Italian law and technical or scientific matters. However, your opinions are not in accord with the credible and reliable evidence. Your hyperbole and misstatements about, for example, "the acquittal being on an 'insufficient evidence' loophole" are absurd and not convincing. But your advocacy for your opinions has led some posters to return to the facts of the case and even more thoroughly rightfully conclude, through the examination of real evidence, that Knox and Sollecito were not guilty of the murder/rape of Kercher and that neither Knox nor Sollecito was present in the cottage at the time of the murder/rape of Kercher.

Some of the Italian courts also have difficulties recognizing which evidence is credible or reliable and which is not. Some of those courts also have had problems comprehending technical and scientific evidence. Some of those courts also had some problems with their violations of Italian procedural laws. Those difficulties and problems lead to some of the Italian courts formulating false "judicial facts". Such false judicial facts should not be confused with facts inferred from fairly and objectively considered credible and reliable evidence.

Knox and Sollecito were rightfully acquitted on the basis that they did not commit the act of the crime - that is what is actually written in the definitive and final acquittal. The remaining issues in the case are the resolution of Sollecito's request for compensation - a case pending before the ECHR - and the legal consequences - before the CoM and the ECHR - of the outcome of the recent re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba despite the ECHR judgment finding her original trial for that charge being irremediably unfair.

 

[Numbers]

What's the central problem in the Knox - Sollecito case? I suggest -again - that it revolves around the not infrequent dysfunctions of the Italian courts and instances of a lack of good faith on the part of various Italian authorities. The recent re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba, and the denial of compensation to Sollecito for unjust detention are examples of failures of good faith and deviations from the rule of law. I use these terms because they are used by the ECHR in its case law:

....In Kavala v. Türkiye [GC], 2022, the Court further underlined that the whole structure of the Convention rests on the general assumption that public authorities in the member States act in good faith. That structure includes the supervision procedure, and the execution of judgments should also involve good faith and take place in a manner compatible with the “conclusions and spirit” of the judgment. The failure to implement a final, binding judicial decision would be likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention....

Source: https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_46_eng
Paragraph 1, page 6.

Rule of Law may be defined as the application or enforcement of laws equally, in a fair and non-arbitrary fashion, by governmental, police, and judicial authorities.

Good Faith may be defined as fair and honest dealing, without an intent to deceive or misrepresent, and without manipulating or neglecting the enforcement of laws - criminal or procedural - to achieve goals contrary to those or other laws.

 

[Stacyhs]

FYI Kate Mansey told John Follain that that is what Sollecito told her about the vaseline.

Oh, for heaven's sake. I quoted and cited Zaroli's testimony.

If you want to continue claiming it was Mansey, then quote and cite the evidence.

This is what Follain wrote (pg 124):

Filomena and Laura were surprised to learn that detectives had asked Amanda about Meredith’s sex life. Raffaele claimed to know the reason: in an ice-cold tone, he said it was because Meredith’s body had been found completely covered in Vaseline.

No mention of Mansey saying anything to him about vaseline is anywhere in his book.

 

[Stacyhs]

1. 15-alleles is not a 'full' allele profile.

True. "A full DNA profile comprises 30 alleles."

1. A near full 15-alllele profile was identified as being that of Meredith Kercher on the knife blade used in her murder.

Since a full profile is 30 alleles, one half of that, 15, is hardly a "near full" profile.
As quoted and cited yesterday, several forensic experts disagree that there were even 15 alleles due to several RFU peaks being under 50.

1. I quoted Nencini yesterday in which the courts confirm it is MK's DNA on the blade.

And nowhere in that does he mention any "15 alleles" being in the sample. The SC judges did not agree.

1. This is factual.

This is just another feeble attempt to avoid answering my question:

Can you provide a forensic expert, aside from Stefanoni, who agrees there was a "near full 15-alleles" profile?

 

[Vixen]

They didn't commit the crime, despite the convoluted horror movie you can't stop playing in your head.

It's reaity based on facts, as brught out during the trial
Oh, for heaven's sake. I quoted and cited Zaroli's testimony.

If you want to continue claiming it was Mansey, then quote and cite the evidence.

This is what Follain wrote (pg 124):


No mention of Mansey saying anything to him about vaseline is anywhere in his book.

Corr: Okay, fair enough, I appear to have misremembered this facet.



.


..

 

[Vixen]

True. "A full DNA profile comprises 30 alleles."

Since a full profile is 30 alleles, one half of that, 15, is hardly a "near full" profile.
As quoted and cited yesterday, several forensic experts disagree that there were even 15 alleles due to several RFU peaks being under 50.


And nowhere in that does he mention any "15 alleles" being in the sample. The SC judges did not agree.


This is just another feeble attempt to avoid answering my question:

Can you provide a forensic expert, aside from Stefanoni, who agrees there was a "near full 15-alleles" profile?

A full profile:

24 genetic markers

This DNA profile is based on 24 genetic markers (stretches of DNA found at specific locations in the genome). Each genetic marker contains a short tandem repeat (STR)—a section of DNA that repeats itself, like a word typed over and over again, with the number of repeats varying from person to person.

In forensic DNA analysis 17-alleles is considered a full profile. 15 a 'near-full profile.

.

.

 

[Stacyhs]

I see where you err. Academia is a completely separate discipline from the legal profession. Criminal law is not about exchanging academic ideas, criminal law is about applying statutes handed down by the lawmakers (politicians).

That's a long way of saying "No, I cannot quote and cite any other forensic expert confirming Kercher's "15-allele profile" was on the knife."

 

[Stacyhs]

Here we come to the crux of the matter. Weighing evidence and finding facts. Before the court can come to a verdict it needs to establish the facts of the matter. How do we get to the facts?

Court scenario. Mr X is charged with illegally parking in front of Piggy-Wiggy store and he refuses to pay the parking fine.

Mr X claims under oath that using his new hot-air balloon system, he had ascended from the surface of the earth to reach the surface of the moon, and has returned. He had brought back some moon rocks as evidence of his journey, but unfortunately, they were lost during his descent when his balloon was caught in a storm.

A witness for the prosecution, Mr A, a traffic warden, testifies he issued a parking ticket at 2:00pm on 10 May 2025 for car reg ABC 1234 at precisely the location of Piggy-Wiggy in Tucson, Arizona. He produces CCTV footage, proof of the time and date the ticket was issued. CCTV footage shows Mr X drove off at 2:25 the same date from the same location.

Witness Ms B confirms Mr X entered the store and has till receipts showing a credit card payment for goods at precisely 2:17, 10 May 2025.

Witness C of Visa credit card co. confirms the card belongs to Mr X, using his PIN.

Witness D, a neighbour of Mr X confirms they stopped to chat outside of the store before he drove off at aforesaid time.

Ask yourself: who does the twelve man jury believe, having been told they must only consider the evidence presented during the hearing?

So Mr. X is found 'Guilty'.

Mr. X appeals and his conviction is overturned on the grounds Mr X suffered a medical psychotic episode in which he believed he was in a hot air balloon and in his hallucinatory state he made 'an emergency landing' at Piggy Wiggy.

Question for you: Does that alter the fact established by the trial that Mr X was illegally parked as of that time date and location and that he was issued a parking ticket by said traffic warden (who may or may not be a vicious bastard lying in wait for the unwary motorist like a predator stalking prey) and was captured on CCTV doing so and as proven by the credit card logs and possibly his phone and car GPS?

No, whilst he may have been acquitted, the facts remain as stated by the original verdict.


Likewise, it remains a fact AK was at the murder scene, her phone logs show what they show and the forensics show what they show, as confirmed by the lower courts and the appeal courts, the acquittal being on an 'insufficient evidence' loophole.

Oh, joy. Yet another scenario courtesy of your imagination.

 

[Vixen]

That's a long way of saying "No, I cannot quote and cite any other forensic expert confirming Kercher's "15-allele profile" was on the knife."

I have not said I cannot.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

Mr. Raper is a lawyer (albeit a defence lawyer), you are not.

And Mr. Raper is a confirmed guilter and TJMK loyalist.

He also tries to discredit Prof. Gill in his commentaries on YouTube. Prof. Gill is a world-renowned forensic expert, Raper is not.

On March 12, 2022, in a Knox related YT comment section Raper and I had a few exchanges. Raper wrote "Poor Peter. He is a bit of a dimwit! He seems to have fallen entirely under the spell of the Knox and Sollecito apologists." And "Most of what he has to say about contamination is really an attempt to sound scientific about his hypotheses." and "
"But it is littered with assumptions, and with illogicalities and inaccuracies, that are easily debunked."

On March 10, 2011, he claimed C&V were 'incompetent" and their report was a "fix". Sound familiar?

Unfortunately, I can't supply the link to either YT. But I sometimes save my responses as YT comments often disappear. However, here is a photo of one of my saved responses to Raper as evidence:

 

[Stacyhs]

Corr: Okay, fair enough, I appear to have misremembered this facet.

Yes, you did.

 

[Stacyhs]

A full profile:

Is it really so difficult to link to a source? That's from https://www.nist.gov/image/dna-profilejpg and nowhere does it say anything about a "full" profile.

In forensic DNA analysis 17-alleles is considered a full profile. 15 a 'near-full profile.

Citation needed.

Can you provide a forensic expert that agrees that 36B had "15-alleles"? If not, just admit it and stop playing games.

 

[TruthCalls]

A full profile:

In forensic DNA analysis 17-alleles is considered a full profile. 15 a 'near-full profile.

Italy was using 15 loci in all of it's DNA analysis. Specifically, here are the 15 loci and the value for the two alleles per locus position in Meredith's profile. Note that I've included the RFU value for the 6 alleles that exceeded 50 RFU (and note, one is at 55 and another at 51) with the values shown in parenthesis.

D8S1179 13 16
D21S11 30 33.2
D7S820 8 11
CSF1PO 12(87) 12(87)
D3S1358 14 18
TH01 6 8
D13S317 8 13
D16S539 10 14
D2S1338 20(55) 23
D19S433 12(99) 16
VWA 14 16
TPOX 8 11(51)
D18S51 14(79) 15
D5S818 11(113) 12
FGA 20 21

So, as had been repeated numerous times, it's 15 loci / 30 alleles for a complete profile. For sample 36B there were only 6 of 30 peaks that exceeded 50 RFU. All other peaks were well below 50 RFU which, per ENFSI and all other forensic DNA standards, means they can not be considered reliable. That is, except for D21S11, which was missing 33.2 entirely.

So Vixen, this is where you, who claims to like to adhere to the science, need to step up and acknowledge there were only six usable peaks, which is a far cry from a "near-full profile". This is not where you get to throw science into the trash bin because it suits your narrative to do so.

Once you finally accept this truth, the next thing to do is remember only a single amplification (more of that PITA science which says this also renders the results unreliable), and then we can cover (again) how removing the knife from the sealed envelope invalidated the knife. We can skip all the other screw-ups as this is more than enough to prove the knife was never proven to be involved in the crime.

 

[Stacyhs]

Stacyhs said:
That's a long way of saying "No, I cannot quote and cite any other forensic expert confirming Kercher's "15-allele profile" was on the knife."

I have not said I cannot.


.

Of course you haven't. But repeatedly failing to do so speaks loud and clear.

 

[Stacyhs]

Italy was using 15 loci in all of it's DNA analysis. Specifically, here are the 15 loci and the value for the two alleles per locus position in Meredith's profile. Note that I've included the RFU value for the 6 alleles that exceeded 50 RFU (and note, one is at 55 and another at 51) with the values shown in parenthesis.

D8S1179 13 16
D21S11 30 33.2
D7S820 8 11
CSF1PO 12(87) 12(87)
D3S1358 14 18
TH01 6 8
D13S317 8 13
D16S539 10 14
D2S1338 20(55) 23
D19S433 12(99) 16
VWA 14 16
TPOX 8 11(51)
D18S51 14(79) 15
D5S818 11(113) 12
FGA 20 21

So, as had been repeated numerous times, it's 15 loci / 30 alleles for a complete profile. For sample 36B there were only 6 of 30 peaks that exceeded 50 RFU. All other peaks were well below 50 RFU which, per ENFSI and all other forensic DNA standards, means they can not be considered reliable.

So Vixen, this is where you, who claims to like to adhere to the science, need to step up and acknowledge there were only six usable peaks, which is a far cry from a "near-full profile". This is not where you get to throw science into the trash bin because it suits your narrative to do so.

Once you finally accept this truth, the next thing to do is remember only a single amplification (more of that PITA science which says this also renders the results unreliable), and then we can cover (again) how removing the knife from the sealed envelope invalidated the knife. We can skip all the other screw-ups as this is more than enough to prove the knife was never proven to be involved in the crime.

Excellent. As I previously quoted and cited, Prof. Gill also said, "I counted only 6 alleles above the reporting threshold."

 

[SpitfireIX]

I certainly don't 'mischaracterise'.

I said I'd have more on this absurd claim later. Sorry it's been a while, but, as I mentioned, I was on vacation for about a week, and it took a while to reconstruct the following two post excerpts with nested quotations, especially without the search function:

No sorry, you said despite Guede, being at least four to three inches shorter that Delfo, the tall gangly defence guy who tried to climb in Filomena's window but failed, that he would somehow make up for it in having longer arms by virtue of being an African gentleman, and yes, I called BS on you but it WAS your comment and people can call out on that type of outrageous claim based on someone's personal characteristics.

No. You claimed, incorrectly that:

Ricardo Pinella is Height: 1,84 m.

He is a good four inches taller than Guede,

Panella is the climber in the video. I pointed out that he is, in fact, 4cm, or 1.5in, taller than Guede. Anticipating that you would object that he was still taller than Guede, I also pointed out, sourced from a perfectly reputable journal, and reported on in that hotbed of racism and bigotry, Slate magazine, that Africans tend to have longer arms that Caucasians, my intended point being that their difference in reach was likely less than their 1.5in height difference would suggest:

According to his Eurobasket.com page, Rudy Guede is is 180cm (5'11) tall. So, assuming your 1.84m is correct, Panella is a good four centimeters (1.5in) taller than Guede. Further, Guede, being African, likely has longer arms than an average Caucasian male of the same height (source, just because I've seen your attempts to throw out red herrings by creating faux controversies in the past).

You, however, displaying your usual level of reading comprehension, totally missed the hilited, and responded as follows:

Great logic! "Guede is African so of course, he is a natural athlete and surely has extraordinarily long arms, so of course he is better at scaling twelve-and-half-feet walls than any accomplished rock climber four inches taller. Stands to reason, don't it? Case closed, M'Lud."

Why don't you explain why you decided to write this incredibly dishonest response based on my merely saying Guede likely had "longer" arms? That's a direct question; kindly answer. And note that I didn't say he likely had longer arms that Panella; I said he likely had longer arms than a Caucasian of the same height.

Further, I never wrote anything comparing Guede to Delfo; you just pulled that out of an orifice so you could try to keep the canard where I was somehow implying that Guede must have "extraordinarily long arms" alive. (Likely because you did, finally, grudgingly, acknowledge your error about the height difference between Guede and Panella after two or three other people had pointed it out to you.)

Thank you for explaining yourself refuting the blatant lie I told about you.

FTFY

I think that highlights the difference between you and me . . .

It does, but not in the way you're trying to imply.

. . . (neither good nor bad).

That's debatable at best.

You have a smug certainty . . .

I said "likely." Kindly explain how that indicates "smug certainty." That's a direct question; please answer.

. . . that Guede, as an African, has 'longer arms' because you claim you once read it somewhere in a mainstream magazine article . . .

I said it was from a reputable journal, as reported in Slate (to preempt any claims by you that the journal is probably just some pseudoscientific racist rag) and I linked to the Slate article, which summarizes and in turn links to the journal article. I also repeated my original post in full in the post to which you responded. For what I'm sure is at least the hundredth time you've been asked, do you even read what other people write??

. . . whereas I have the breadth of knowledge to know that there are at least 62 distinct ethnic groups in Africa . . .

Irrelevant, as you have no idea what the average arm length of any of them is compared with white Europeans.

. . . hence why I thought your claim a remarkably stupid one.

Because, as usual, you didn't bother to give what I'd written more than a cursory reading, let alone check the source (or even notice there was a source), especially as doing so could have potentially weakened your "argument" that the tape a) is probably fake, and b) doesn't prove anything anyway.

So, to recap, you claimed that the climber in the video, Panella, was four inches taller than Guede, thus insinuating that the demonstration was totally invalid. I pointed out that the climber was actually four centimeters (1.5 inches) taller than Guede, and I also pointed out that, being African, Guede "likely" had longer arms than a white man of the same height, and I linked to, and later described, how this is discussed in a Slate magazine article, and based on a perfectly reputable journal article.

You, however, grossly mischaracterized what I'd written, repeating the four-inch error, despite my correcting you, and claimed that I was implying that Guede had "extraordinarily long arms" that made him better at climbing than an experienced rock climber four inches taller, when my point was simply that their difference in reach was likely less than the 1.5in height difference would suggest.

Later, after you apparently finally admitted your in/cm error, you tried to pretend that I'd actually compared Guede to Delfo, probably, as I mentioned, so you could keep the "extraordinarily long arms" canard alive.

Finally, you stated that I had a "smug certainty" when I'd used the word "likely," and you further stated that I "claim[ed] I you once read it somewhere in a mainstream magazine article," when I'd linked to the actual source, which, again, discusses research from a reputable journal.

Edit: Corrected last quotation in last sentence of last paragraph as shown.

 

[SpitfireIX]

So, Vixen, why don't you explain to us how you didn't grossly mischaracterize what I wrote. And please don't try the "this is off topic"
dodge or the "I don't want to talk about eugenics" lie this time. You opened the door to this line of discussion by claiming that everyone was falsely accusing you of mischaracterizing their arguments.

 

[Stacyhs]

I said I'd have more on this absurd claim later. Sorry it's been a while, but, as I mentioned, I was on vacation for about a week, and it took a while to reconstruct the following two post excerpts with nested quotations, especially without the search function:





So, to recap, you claimed that the climber in the video, Panella, was four inches taller than Guede, thus insinuating that the demonstration was totally invalid. I pointed out that the climber was actually four centimeters (1.5 inches) taller than Guede, and I also pointed out that, being African, Guede "likely" had longer arms than a white man of the same height, and I linked to, and later described, how this is discussed in a Slate magazine article, and based on a perfectly reputable journal article.

You, however, grossly mischaracterized what I'd written, repeating the four-inch error, despite my correcting you, and claimed that I was implying that Guede had "extraordinarily long arms" that made him better at climbing than an experienced rock climber four inches taller, when my point was simply that their difference in reach was likely less than the 1.5in height difference would suggest.

Later, after you apparently finally admitted your in/cm error, you tried to pretend that I'd actually compared Guede to Delfo, probably, as I mentioned, so you could keep the "extraordinarily long arms" canard alive.

Finally, you stated that I had a "smug certainty" when I'd used the word "likely," and you further stated that I "claim[ed] I once read it somewhere in a mainstream magazine article," when I'd linked to the actual source, which, again, discusses research from a reputable journal.

Vixen was certainly mischaracterizing what you said.

 

[Numbers]

Italy was using 15 loci in all of it's DNA analysis. Specifically, here are the 15 loci and the value for the two alleles per locus position in Meredith's profile. Note that I've included the RFU value for the 6 alleles that exceeded 50 RFU (and note, one is at 55 and another at 51) with the values shown in parenthesis.

D8S1179 13 16
D21S11 30 33.2
D7S820 8 11
CSF1PO 12(87) 12(87)
D3S1358 14 18
TH01 6 8
D13S317 8 13
D16S539 10 14
D2S1338 20(55) 23
D19S433 12(99) 16
VWA 14 16
TPOX 8 11(51)
D18S51 14(79) 15
D5S818 11(113) 12
FGA 20 21

So, as had been repeated numerous times, it's 15 loci / 30 alleles for a complete profile. For sample 36B there were only 6 of 30 peaks that exceeded 50 RFU. All other peaks were well below 50 RFU which, per ENFSI and all other forensic DNA standards, means they can not be considered reliable. That is, except for D21S11, which was missing 33.2 entirely.

So Vixen, this is where you, who claims to like to adhere to the science, need to step up and acknowledge there were only six usable peaks, which is a far cry from a "near-full profile". This is not where you get to throw science into the trash bin because it suits your narrative to do so.

Once you finally accept this truth, the next thing to do is remember only a single amplification (more of that PITA science which says this also renders the results unreliable), and then we can cover (again) how removing the knife from the sealed envelope invalidated the knife. We can skip all the other screw-ups as this is more than enough to prove the knife was never proven to be involved in the crime.

Truth Calls, thanks for so clearly explaining these major issues with the contamination in Sample 36B. I'll add a bit of commentary which may be obvious to most readers but may need some emphasis.

Comparing the electropherogram (DNA loci profile chart) derived from sample 36B (the knife blade) and Kercher's reference electropherogram, there is a large difference in the RFU-axis scaling which may mask the physically significant differences in the heights of the allele peaks and the relative heights of allele pairs at each locus. In the Kercher DNA reference chart, the maximum allele peak is about 7600 RFU, while the minimum is about 800 RFU. In comparison, on the sample 36B chart, the maximum height, at locus D5S818, is 113 RFU. The minimum may be considered to be 0 RFU at locus D21S11, since the 33.2 allele is missing (assuming that the DNA template for sample 36B is indeed an LTN-LCN bit of Kercher's DNA).

The point is that the DNA amounts in sample 36B were so low that on a typical electropherogram, they could be present and not detectable, because they would be hidden within the "grass" noise along the x-axis baseline. Futhermore, as we're aware, Stefanoni absolutely refused to turn over copies of the original electronic data files of the DNA testing. What rational reason could she have had for that refusal? As readers here may be aware, if one has a copy of the original electronic data file, and the proper equipment to read it (as a DNA profiling lab would), one can examine the "grass" noise along the x-axis baseline, and magnify it to detect if there was a pattern of DNA contamination in the samples. It is known that DNA contamination was detectable in the DNA quantification result from one of the few negative control DNA quantification results that Stefanoni provided to the defense. So it's possible, but probably unknowable, that other DNA profiled samples had tiny profiles of Kercher's or other's DNA hidden in the "grass" noise along the x-axis of some of the electropherograms.

There are other characteristics of LTN-LCN DNA besides the small RFU values of the allele peaks, that are displayed in the electropherograms. One is the occassional appearance of anomalous peaks of about the same height as presumed "real" peaks. Toward the left of the D19S433 locus, there are indeed two anomalous peaks of height about equal to the "real" peaks. Another characteristic relates to relative peak heights of the two peaks at a locus. There are two peaks at a locus that are the DNA contributions from each parent's different alleles. If the parents have identical alleles for that locus, there will be only one peak with greater height. In an electropherogram from a sample with "standard" non-LTN-LCN amounts of DNA, the peak heights from both alleles at each locus will be approximately equal. However, for LTN-LCN DNA, because of the statistical limitations of the biochemical reactions in the amplification, it is not unlikely that both peak heights at a locus will be unbalanced - highly unequal. This imbalance is readily observed in the DNA profile of sample 36B.

 

[Numbers]

I've found another online copy of the English translation of the Conti-Vecchiotti Report. This one has the advantage of being a continuous document available on one web page:

https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/translation-of-the-conti-vecchiotti-report2.pdf

Now that I can refer to a simpler page-numbered format on a single web page, I will point out some issues and pose some questions. Note that RTIGF is an Italian acronym for Technical Report on the Forensic Genetic Tests and SAL is an acronym for Work Status Report (a card format).

1. Page 53. Stefanoni had to remove presumed material from the sample points on the knife. The proper way to do so, minimizing the risk of contamination, would include certain measures such as bleaching work surfaces before beginning the removal, wearing sterile clean gloves that would be changed between samples, and using sterile swabs and other sterile instruments. However, Stefanoni did not record any of this activity and the measures taken to minimize contamination during this procedure.

2. Page 54. Stefanoni's SAL and RTIGF show that she performed a presumptive test for blood and an antibody test for any trace of human tissue on samples 36 B, C, E, and G (all from the knife blade). Both tests were negative for each sample.

3. Page 55. Stefanoni did not record any tests or microscopic observations to look for cells or cell fragments in those samples, so it must be assumed that none were attempted, but she continued to presume the presence of biological material in samples 36 B, C, E, and G, and began the procedures preparatory for DNA testing.

4. Page 55. The RTIGF records that an automated extractor was used to extract the presumed DNA from the samples; the SAL records that samples 36 A, B, and C were DNA-extracted on 13 November 2007, while samples 36 D, E, F, and G were DNA-extracted on 17 December 2007. The extraction volume was 50 microlitres (ul) for each sample. (I'm using "u" for the Greek letter mu for convenience.)

5. Page 56. The RTIGF shows that the DNA concentrations were found by Real Time PCR using a 7700 Sequence Detector ABI PRISM™ apparatus
from the company Applied Biosystems. The RTIFG record shows that samples 36 A and B were positive for DNA, but without any numerical value for the quantity found, while sample 36 C, D, E, and F were negative for DNA. No information on the kit used for the quantification was provided in the record. However, the records for the Real Time PCR show that it was used only for samples 36 C, D, E, and F on 18 December 2007, and indeed, they all tested negative (0.00) for DNA .

6. Pages 57 - 58. For samples 36 A, B, and C, there is another report attached, dated 13 November 2007, that shows those samples were tested with a Qubit Fluorometer from the company Invitrogen using the kit dsDNA HS. The range of accuracy for this fluorometer is a DNA concentration of 0.2 to 100 ng/ul. The fluorometer found the following DNA concentrations, according to Stefanoni's written record: sample 36 A, 0.08 ng/ul; 36 B, too low [to be measured], 36 C, too low [to be measured]. Even though the actual quantification showed only A had measurable DNA, Stefanoni continued after the fluorometer quantification with the original (unmeasured) claim that both samples A and B had measurable DNA.

7. Page 59. Stefanoni, during the GUP hearing (4 October 2008) testified that sample 36 B had DNA that had been quantified using Real Time PCR and that the amount of DNA was “in the order of some hundreds of picograms [pg]”, "a value which does not appear in any of the documents provided" to C&V. [100 pg = 0.1 ng (nanograms)] The amount in sample 36 B had to be far less than that in 36 A, which had 4 ng = 4000 pg, and might have contained no DNA whatsoever.

Question 1: It appears that Stefanoni falsified her records and her testimony in the GUP hearing, claiming to have used Real Time PCR to quantify samples 36 A, B, and C, but in reality using a fluorometer to determine the quantification. She did not correct her original statement in her written records. Why would she falsify her records and her testimony? What does that imply about the credibility of the data? Was Stefanoni justified in claiming that sample 36 B had "some hundreds of picograms" of DNA if the fluorometer could not determine the amount because of its limited sensitivity? Why was she satisfied that sample 36 C had no DNA, because it show "too low", but treated sample 36 B as having DNA although it gave the same reading as 36 C?

 

[Vixen]

I said I'd have more on this absurd claim later. Sorry it's been a while, but, as I mentioned, I was on vacation for about a week, and it took a while to reconstruct the following two post excerpts with nested quotations, especially without the search function:





So, to recap, you claimed that the climber in the video, Panella, was four inches taller than Guede, thus insinuating that the demonstration was totally invalid. I pointed out that the climber was actually four centimeters (1.5 inches) taller than Guede, and I also pointed out that, being African, Guede "likely" had longer arms than a white man of the same height, and I linked to, and later described, how this is discussed in a Slate magazine article, and based on a perfectly reputable journal article.

You, however, grossly mischaracterized what I'd written, repeating the four-inch error, despite my correcting you, and claimed that I was implying that Guede had "extraordinarily long arms" that made him better at climbing than an experienced rock climber four inches taller, when my point was simply that their difference in reach was likely less than the 1.5in height difference would suggest.

Later, after you apparently finally admitted your in/cm error, you tried to pretend that I'd actually compared Guede to Delfo, probably, as I mentioned, so you could keep the "extraordinarily long arms" canard alive.

Finally, you stated that I had a "smug certainty" when I'd used the word "likely," and you further stated that I "claim[ed] I you once read it somewhere in a mainstream magazine article," when I'd linked to the actual source, which, again, discusses research from a reputable journal.

Edit: Corrected last quotation in last sentence of last paragraph as shown.

I don't believe it. Delfo looks head and shoulders in the photo taller than everyone else so certainly is not under six feet tall as you claim.

Your theories about race are rubbish. There are at least 87 distinct ethnicities in Europe alone, not to mention numerous subgroups. Your claim Guede must be naturally good at climbing walls because he's African is MAGA-style nonsense. You might as well claim Finns are good at long distance running and ice hockey, Swedes at high jump, French and Ukrainians at pole vault, African-Americans at power sprints, the English at hurdles and relay, the Italians at triple jump: in reality the vast majority of Europeans (and Africans and Asians) are nothing of the sort.


.

 

[Vixen]

Italy was using 15 loci in all of it's DNA analysis. Specifically, here are the 15 loci and the value for the two alleles per locus position in Meredith's profile. Note that I've included the RFU value for the 6 alleles that exceeded 50 RFU (and note, one is at 55 and another at 51) with the values shown in parenthesis.

D8S1179 13 16
D21S11 30 33.2
D7S820 8 11
CSF1PO 12(87) 12(87)
D3S1358 14 18
TH01 6 8
D13S317 8 13
D16S539 10 14
D2S1338 20(55) 23
D19S433 12(99) 16
VWA 14 16
TPOX 8 11(51)
D18S51 14(79) 15
D5S818 11(113) 12
FGA 20 21

So, as had been repeated numerous times, it's 15 loci / 30 alleles for a complete profile. For sample 36B there were only 6 of 30 peaks that exceeded 50 RFU. All other peaks were well below 50 RFU which, per ENFSI and all other forensic DNA standards, means they can not be considered reliable. That is, except for D21S11, which was missing 33.2 entirely.

So Vixen, this is where you, who claims to like to adhere to the science, need to step up and acknowledge there were only six usable peaks, which is a far cry from a "near-full profile". This is not where you get to throw science into the trash bin because it suits your narrative to do so.

Once you finally accept this truth, the next thing to do is remember only a single amplification (more of that PITA science which says this also renders the results unreliable), and then we can cover (again) how removing the knife from the sealed envelope invalidated the knife. We can skip all the other screw-ups as this is more than enough to prove the knife was never proven to be involved in the crime.

Thanks for the clear breakdown. In a criminal court of law, the judge and jury go for the argument they prefer. Nencini ruled in favour of Torrecelli and Novelli. As Nencini pointed out in his MR, the issue of the Kercher DNA was significant in that it identified Kercher. He said the issue of whether this is haematic material or not was not relevant for the purpose of the court.


.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for the clear breakdown. In a criminal court of law, the judge and jury go for the argument they prefer. Nencini ruled in favour of Torrecelli and Novelli. As Nencini pointed out in his MR, the issue of the Kercher DNA was significant in that it identified Kercher. He said the issue of whether this is haematic material or not was not relevant for the purpose of the court.

We are discussing a case tried under Italian law and in Italian courts. There is no jury in the sense used in the US or UK. In the Italian assize court, there are two professional judges and 5 lay (non-professional) judges. The lay judges and the professional judges under Italian law decide the case outcome together in a meeting. (A jury, generally 12 citizens in the US, meets on its own after hearing the case and being instructed on the law by the judge.) The arguments adopted under Italian law must meet certain criteria, for example, CPP Articles 192 paragraph 2 and 191, and must be logical.

 

[Vixen]

We are discussing a case tried under Italian law and in Italian courts. There is no jury in the sense used in the US or UK. In the Italian assize court, there are two professional judges and 5 lay (non-professional) judges. The lay judges and the professional judges under Italian law decide the case outcome together in a meeting. (A jury meets on its own after hearing the case and being instructed on the law by the judge.) The arguments adopted under Italian law must meet certain criteria, for example, CPP Articles 192 paragraph 2 and 191, and must be logical.

Yes, actually six permanent jurors (= hence, 'jurors') who together with the two judges come to the verdict, tribunal style.

.

 

[TruthCalls]

Thanks for the clear breakdown. In a criminal court of law, the judge and jury go for the argument they prefer. Nencini ruled in favour of Torrecelli and Novelli.

They can favor whomever they want, but they don't get to re-write scientific fact or forensic protocols and procedures.

As Nencini pointed out in his MR, the issue of the Kercher DNA was significant in that it identified Kercher.

And Nencini would be wrong. You can NOT consider peaks as low 15 RFU as usable. 10 peaks were 30 RFU or less. This is exactly what one would expect when dealing with lab contamination. Further, concerns with allelic imbalance were never addressed.

He said the issue of whether this is haematic material or not was not relevant for the purpose of the court.

Agreed, but irrelevant. What IS relevant, and interestingly, not mentioned by Nencini is;

• Three lab tests ... negative for blood, negative for human species, negative for DNA.
• Removing the knife from the collection envelope not in a sterile lab by a trained lab tech, but by an untrained cop in a forensically filthy police station.
• Stefanoni not following defined protocols when she over-amplified the sample.
• The sample being amplified only once, despite even the RIS experts testifying to the absolute necessity for at least two cycles, more for LCN profiling.

So there's no mystery as to why most people have come to realize Nencini decided they were guilty and was going to ignore anything that contradicted this. And this is precisely why Marasca overturned Nencini and denunciated not only Nencini, but the investigation as a whole for the irreversible mistakes made. But you just keep your head buried in the sand.

 

[Numbers]

They can favor whomever they want, but they don't get to re-write scientific fact or forensic protocols and procedures.

And Nencini would be wrong. You can NOT consider peaks as low 15 RFU as usable. 10 peaks were 30 RFU or less. This is exactly what one would expect when dealing with lab contamination. Further, concerns with allelic imbalance

Agreed, but irrelevant. What IS relevant, and interestingly, not mentioned by Nencini is;

• Three lab tests ... negative for blood, negative for human species, negative for DNA.
• Removing the knife from the collection envelope not in a sterile lab by a trained lab tech, but by an untrained cop in a forensically filthy police station.
• Stefanoni not following defined protocols when she over-amplified the sample.
• The sample being amplified only once, despite even the RIS experts testifying to the absolute necessity for at least two cycles, more for LCN profiling.

So there's no mystery as to why most people have come to realize Nencini decided they were guilty and was going to ignore anything that contradicted this. And this is precisely why Marasca overturned Nencini and denunciated not only Nencini, but the investigation as a whole for the irreversible mistakes made. But you just keep your head buried in the sand.

Yes.
One other critical step that Stefanoni applied was the concentration of sample 36 B by aspiration - that is, by means of suction - several times. She did not record the number of times she aspirated the sample, but in her testimony, as reported in C&V report, it was at least 3 times. The suction could have drawn DNA from the lab environment into the sample. She had worked on preparing sample 36 B at about or during the time she was working with samples of Kercher's DNA.

 

[TruthCalls]

Yes, actually six permanent jurors (= hence, 'jurors') who together with the two judges come to the verdict, tribunal style.

You're correct, it's six LAY Jurors, but they are NOT permanent... they are selected much the same way jurors in the US or UK are selected, from the general population, and they serve for the course of one trial, and then they are dismissed.

However, I think the important part of Numbers' post would be "The arguments adopted under Italian law must meet certain criteria, for example, CPP Articles 192 paragraph 2 and 191, and must be logical." Clearly Nencini wasn't too concerned with CPP Art 192 - 1&2.

 

[Numbers]

Yes, actually six permanent jurors (= hence, 'jurors') who together with the two judges come to the verdict, tribunal style.

I remembered incorrectly; there are indeed six lay judges on an Italian Corte d'Assise (court of assize).

Here's a Wikipedia article on the subject:

Corte d'Assise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here's a relevant excerpt:

Lay judges wear a sash in the national colours and are not technically jurors, as the term is understood in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. The Italian word Giudice (Judge) refers both to the eight together as a collective body and to each of them considered separately as a member of that body.

Since lay judges are not jurors, they cannot be excused, unless there are grounds that would also justify an objection to a judge. So, the office is practically mandatory. Also, they are not sequestered, because a trial often lasts too long to restrict travel. An Italian trial, including the preliminary investigations, preliminary hearing, trial and appeals, can last several years. Keeping a citizen - who continues to work, while serving as a lay judge - sequestered for years would be unfeasible.

 

[Stacyhs]

Not being a forensic expert on DNA, this still stood out at me: All the samples from the knife blade, including 36B, tested negative for human tissue. How can it be Kercher's DNA if it's neither blood nor human tissue?