Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

You mean like this non-existent evidence: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/batch-two-kitchen-knife-36b-suppression-90-profiles/

You know, the showing of suppression, contamination and deceit that you have never been able to refute in any way, shape or form?

Precisely. This is the kind of stuff the pro-Knox crowd carefully avoids bringing to the attention of a magistrate. Because if they did so their bubble would go "puff".

 

[Kaosium]

If by "posteriori estimation" you mean an estimation that she pulled out of her ass, then yes, I agree.

LOL!!!!

Truth is the best humor sometimes.

 

[Machiavelli]

Glad to retract the "secret tests" thing as soon as you can adequately explain why 36b was generated on a "-bis" plate with 90% missing profiles, and 165 was generated in a plate (no. 414) that postdates the applicable batch testing.

So the moronic deduction stems from the fact that a plate is numbered "bis". Congratulations. Explain that to a magistrate, so.

 

[Kaosium]

Precisely. This is the kind of stuff the pro-Knox crowd carefully avoids bringing to the attention of a magistrate. Because if they did so their bubble would go "puff".

Have you signed the petition? I have. This is the only avenue I know to getting the attention of the Italian Magistrates. If you know of a better way, I'm all ears.

 

[Machiavelli]

Like the evidence that the knife blade sample was 120-150 pgs doesn't exist? Here's my evidence, do you understand what it says?

:

The evidence exists and is obvious, and doesn't require any comment.
But what is even more obvious, is that this is no evidence of anything against Stefanoni.

 

[Wattson]

Nobody - I repeat: nobody - among the defence attorneys, or the Knox supporters, ever submitted such alleged "evidence" or even expressed such claims to any authority or judge.

Because the Knoxophiles have no intention to investigate anything. They are a bunch of lousy cowards. They are only good at screaming from far away, tgey can't act seriously, because they are just malicious liars; they know their evidence doesn't exist.

What do we have here? Another Mach?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Stefanoni provided the evidence that proved contamination in the form of the quantitation document. She was hoisted on her own petard. Your post would fertilize many rose bushes.

Then if you are so confident, just go and present your "evidence" to a magistrate, and let's see what you can fertilize.

 

[Kaosium]

The evidence exists and is obvious, and doesn't require any comment.

Then explain it to me in small words so I can understand!

But what is even more obvious, is that this is no evidence of anything against Stefanoni.

What I posted was indeed evidence that <Dr. Stefanoni's work was unreliable. Produced by Italian scientists for an Italian court. I can even explain what it means and have done so over and over again for about three and a half years.

Your 120-150 pgs on the other hand doesn't exist. I suspect I know what you're referring to, but if I'm right you ought to chat with Thoughtful before you say it again because it doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.

 

[TomB]

You mean like this non-existent evidence: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/b...n-90-profiles/

You know, the showing of suppression, contamination and deceit that you have never been able to refute in any way, shape or form?

Wait... maybe I'm not reading this right, but I'm seeing everything reported as <3 ng. Except for Knox DNA on knife and boxer shorts. (whose?) I've never done this type of work, but in standard practice, when you see a lab result reported with a concentration of < something it means a non-detect. Labs never report zero. They report less than the detection limit of the method. Is there another run that I'm missing somewhere?

A few years ago on another forum someone pointed to a lab result of rainwater (collected in Tupperware left out in the rain, but that's a whole other thing) as proof of chemtrails. The result they were citing was for Barium at < something. Because the lab didn't report zero they contended that meant that Barium was detected and it proved the government was pumping barium salts into the atmosphere through jet planes. Had to clean off my monitor for that one.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli,

Stefanoni provided the evidence that proved contamination in the form of the quantitation document. She was hoisted on her own petard. Your post would fertilize many rose bushes.

Then if you are so confident, just go and present your "evidence" to a magistrate, and let's see what you can fertilize.

Because if Massei and Nencini are the ones to go on, they would not investigate, nor seek independent analysis of Stefanoni's work. Like Judge Massei did, all they would do is ask Stefanoni if her work was all right, and she would answer, "yes".

That would be the limit of the investigation. As Chieffi admitted in March 2013, if there were to be a serious look at Italian forensics, then this would call into question all convictions since 1986.

Every time a truly independent expert has looked at Stefanoni's work, they have all said the same thing. What your role in this, is to then conspiratorialize why everyone else, the truly independent ones, say the same thing.

 

[Diocletus]

Then if you are so confident, just go and present your "evidence" to a magistrate, and let's see what you can fertilize.

Why do we need a "magistrate" to tell us what to think? Italian magistrates are O-fer in this whole proceeding, so we can only conclude that they are generally lazy, stupid, dishonest and/or biased. Why would I want an idiot like that to decide for me? These guys didn't even have the integrity to enforce discovery orders and investigate obvious prosecutorial misconduct that was staring them in the face. We all know that the prosecution will continue to hide/destroy any compromising evidence and the magistrates won't do anything about it, so why the appeal to these compromised authorities?

 

[Bill Williams]

There is a discussion on PMF about phone calls, briefly the conclusions are from Jar,

1. Nencini ascribed the received Lumumba text and the reply to different towers, concluding she lied about receiving the message from inside Raffaele's place.
2. He ascribes the same tower for the received text for the calls she made to Filomena and the missing phones, but states she was inside his apartment.

This is contradictory, and surely shows the tower pinging was location dependent within his apartment, and Jar concludes saying

" On the contrary he categorically states that those calls all occurred whilst Knox was at Sollecito's. Sorry to say it but it appears pretty obvious that Nencini bungled this. He can't have it both ways."

Stilicho weighs in with

"I've never really found much of the cell phone evidence that compelling except for the timing of the calls on the morning the Postal Police surprised Stabby and Gabby at the cottage."

However Leila Schnepps has demolished this argument, from a guilter perspective, and of course IIP does anyway, but now MichaelB by an independent pathway shows that the postals were at the police station at 12 30 before getting lost for a substantial period on the way to the cottage, so arriving at 12 55 as Leila says, after Raffaele called the Carrabiniere is the only conclusion to hold water.

There go two big lies the prosecution have enjoyed exploiting, and argued by guilters.

Machiavelli, since you seem able to edit McCall's wikipedia, would you consider fixing these errors that are on a document promoted to the world's media by The Machine and others, or alternatively explain how Jar and Leila Schnepps have got these two substantial issues wrong.

I never edited the McCall Wikipedia page. I doubt my first edits will be correcting details along with the pro-Knox beliefs.

There are also errors on the fake-wiki, the McCall one, about premeditation. Can you correct them, too, while you're at it, Machiavelli!

 

[Diocletus]

Wait... maybe I'm not reading this right, but I'm seeing everything reported as <3 ng. Except for Knox DNA on knife and boxer shorts. (whose?) I've never done this type of work, but in standard practice, when you see a lab result reported with a concentration of < something it means a non-detect. Labs never report zero. They report less than the detection limit of the method. Is there another run that I'm missing somewhere?

It's not a concentration, but rather an absolute amount in the 50 ml sample based on the concentration reported by the machine. The QF detection threshold was so high, that it couldn't see anything less than 3 ng in 50 ml. Thus, when you see <3 ng, it means that the result was given as "too low" by the machine. It is a non-detect, as you suggest.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then explain it to me in small words.

The fluorimeter sensitivity threshold is in the tens of picograms, if you have 10 microliters you have hundreds of picograms. It's elementary.

What is also elementary is that Conti and Vecchuotti cheated about the quantization of the "I" sample, that they lied about it was obvious to everyone, except the Knox supporters.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why do we need a "magistrate" to tell us what to think? Italian magistrates are O-fer in this whole proceeding, so we can only conclude that they are generally lazy, stupid, dishonest and/or biased. Why would I want an idiot like that to decide for me? These guys didn't even have the integrity to enforce discovery orders and investigate obvious prosecutorial misconduct that was staring them in the face. We all know that the prosecution will continue to hide/destroy any compromising evidence and the magistrates won't do anything about it, so why the appeal to these compromised authorities?

There are no guilty ones who like judges to decide for them, Diocletus. All judges are unjust, evil and wrong when seen through the eyes of a murderer.

 

[Diocletus]

The fluorimeter sensitivity threshold is in the tens of picograms, if you have 10 microliters you have hundreds of picograms. It's elementary.

LOL. RU Serious. Do you also think that a pillow weights more than a brick?

 

[carbonjam72]

So the moronic deduction stems from the fact that a plate is numbered "bis". Congratulations. Explain that to a magistrate, so.

Mach, is it theoretically possible that Amanda and Raf never left raf's apartment on the night Meredith was killed?

Is there any evidence you believe is direct and conclusive that Amanda and/or Raf, or indeed anyone else but Rudy Guede was present when meredith was assaulted?

Or is your view that the entire case is unfortunately one of 'circumstantial evidence' that when taken as a whole, permits a conclusion that Amanda and Raf are guilty? And on this basis, they are 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'?

 

[Diocletus]

So the moronic deduction stems from the fact that a plate is numbered "bis". Congratulations. Explain that to a magistrate, so.

In part, yeah. You see, "bis" means do-over.

But, there's also the part about 90% of the profiles from this plate being "missing," which is unprecedented in the case and suggests either: 1) that she was so bad at amplification technique that she only got profiles in 1 out of 10 samples in this plate, or 2) that she is hiding something. Since we know that her lab technique is perfect, the answer must be no. 2: hiding something.

Take the above two points together, and we can see that there was a contamination event involving this plate.

 

[carbonjam72]

The fluorimeter sensitivity threshold is in the tens of picograms, if you have 10 microliters you have hundreds of picograms. It's elementary.
What is also elementary is that Conti and Vecchuotti cheated about the quantization of the "I" sample, that they lied about it was obvious to everyone, except the Knox supporters.

What? I hope I'm not muddling terms here, but is this confusing the sample's quantity with concentration?

Does this make sense to anyone?

 

[Kaosium]

The fluorimeter sensitivity threshold is in the tens of picograms, if you have 10 microliters you have hundreds of picograms. It's elementary.

There was no reading, just 'Too low.' The best you can do is estimate the most it could have been, but you have no evidence that there was anything in there at all. Zero produces the same results.

What is also elementary is that Conti and Vecchuotti cheated about the quantization of the "I" sample, that they lied about it was obvious to everyone, except the Knox supporters.

Because that looked more like he misspoke in court. Regardless the sample was in the low template range and the lab wasn't certified or equipped to do that work whether he'd said it correctly or not.

Stefanoni on the other hand pulled a number out of nowhere that changed the sample from a low template one to within the definitions of one commonly applied high template threshold (>100 pgs). However the electropherograms she produced were consistent with a 10 pgs sample and hell and gone from the trials of the 100 pgs samples that NIST did.

Remember my recent post where I showed you how to read an electropherogram? Look at the peaks of the knife blade from my first link ('blade chart, color' is the best) and compare it to NIST's trials with a 28 cycle Identifiler kit, which is what Stefanoni used. Look at the RFU range and compare, note how the 10 pg samples correspond closely to the knife blade RFU levels and how the 100 pg samples are 500%-1000% or so bigger.

Having failed to do Real Time PCR and gotten a 'Too low' on the Qubit only a liar or a fool would try to pretend the knife blade sample was on the order of 'hundreds of pgs.' She had to zoom that far in to even get a readable result, she had to have known she was dealing with much less than 100 pgs.