Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

But they were in the plaza, remember?

Kokomani was very vague about time. It's likely he came and went as he supplied for the dealers and junkies who hung around Grimana Piazza.

From what he says about hearing a scream and banging of furniture, he puts himself inside the cottage IMV, perhaps downstairs negotiating out the gear.

Someone was down there, judging by the mess left behind.

 

[Bill Williams]

No. If Raff's DNA came from the door handle, then it follows, so might have Rudy's. We know Rudy was there. However, he claims his presence was innocent. You can't just say, we know Rudy was there and we don't believe he had a date, therefore it doesn't matter if his DNA is robust or not, because as scientists, we are objectively assessing what the DNA evidence is, regardless of any other evidence, or whether Rudy was there on a date, or there to burgle (Americans: there is no such word as "burglarize"; ugh!).

There is no sign of Rudy's DNA in the "burgled"room, nor the bathroom. There was one on the bag, one on Mez' body, one on the bra and one on the sweater. That is hardly "multiple" when we have at least FIVE DNA samples of Amanda mixed with Mez, when they bled at the same time, including a trail of Mez' blood leading into the burgled room, mixed with Amanda's DNA.

Wrong. There is no blood evidence of Amanda at the cottage, save for the spot on the bathroom sink tap which was not mixed with anything.

If the collection and analysis of the kids DNA is contaminated, then objectively and ethically, we have to say the same for Rudy's.

DNA science shouldn't be about opinion, depending on how much you like the persons involved or your belief in whether they should or should not be present.

Gill's big downfall is his lack of objectivity and open advocacy for the kids - both breaches of professional ethics - presumably based on his preconceptions about "Rudy the migrant drifter burglar".

All of that would have been fair game for peer review. Can you provide ANY comment from a professional peer of Gill's who issues these as cautions?

Better still - you should forward your own concerns to Forensic Science International: Genetics. See if they are accepted as legitimate peer review....

It has never been explained why someone who as objectivity found that the court process was flawed, WOULDN'T openly advocate against a wrongful conviction! As long as the science is sound - maybe even BECAUSE the science is sound - what's wrong with following that up in advocacy?

 

[Vixen]

Thank you. Returning to the point of why Gill said what he said is perhaps something Vixen wants to avoid.

What, then, are the "false premises" that Vixen is referring to? That Rudy's DNA was NOT found at the scene? What difference would that make, even if true - Rudy admits to being there.

Rudy patently did have no business being there. Esp. with the "Amanda let him in" theory, which still makes it from Meredith's point of view that Rudy had no business being there.

Unless Vixen is arguing that Meredith and Rudy actually did have a prearranged date - which is the only reason Rudy would have had reason to be there, such reason ending up with his DNA inside the victim! What "business" did he have there that ended up with his DNA inside the victim?

Vixen's criticism of Gill on those two points is bizarre. Then again, Vixen doesn't know what goes into a peer review, and Vixen is no peer of Gill's.

You fail to grasp that the DNA issue is not about the personalities involved. The PIP are completely unable to separate their advocacy from straightforward logic. For example, they will say of Amanda's DNA mixed with Mez' "Oh, that's all right, she lived there!"

In other words they are prepared to excuse the hard scientific evidence of Amanda being there whilst Mez bled to death, or within half an hour of it, as blood begins clotting straight away and dries quickly. Yet Rudy being there, whether innocently or not, is automatically "the sole killer" by virtue of it.

An objective person will realise there are many likely scenarios, which will differ according to whether (a) Rudy was a burglar with at least two knives (b) Amanda and Raff were there and the burglary was staged, by implication, by them, but that's no proof they were involved (Bruno-Marasca) (c) Rudy was there on a date, whether imagined or real, so of course his DNA is on the victim's body, as they made out, or (d) all three were involved and the fact of Rudy's DNA being there does not cancel out Amanda or Raff's DNA.

Gill is arguing that the DNA relating to Amanda and Raff is contaminated, but that relating to Rudy is not. This is repulsive logic to a reasonable ethical person, whether pro or con.

 

[Bill Williams]

I witness a collision at an intersection. A Mercury Villager runs a red light and t-bones a Volkswagen Cabriolet.

At court, I say on direct examination: "The Mercury Villager ran the red light, and t-boned the Volkswagen Cabriolet which was eastbound on a green-light."

Under cross-examination, the lawyer for the driver of the Villager asks, "When did you start this PR campaign of advocacy against my client?"

My answer: "After I saw him run the red light and t-bone the Cabriolet."

The lawyer petitions the court to have my testimony thrown out as shameless advocacy.

In Vixen's world, the judge agrees and the whole case is thrown out.

 

[Bill Williams]

You fail to grasp that the DNA issue is not about the personalities involved. The PIP are completely unable to separate their advocacy from straightforward logic. For example, they will say of Amanda's DNA mixed with Mez' "Oh, that's all right, she lived there!"

In other words they are prepared to excuse the hard scientific evidence of Amanda being there whilst Mez bled to death, or within half an hour of it, as blood begins clotting straight away and dries quickly. Yet Rudy being there, whether innocently or not, is automatically "the sole killer" by virtue of it.

An objective person will realise there are many likely scenarios, which will differ according to whether (a) Rudy was a burglar with at least two knives (b) Amanda and Raff were there and the burglary was staged, by implication, by them, but that's no proof they were involved (Bruno-Marasca) (c) Rudy was there on a date, whether imagined or real, so of course his DNA is on the victim's body, as they made out, or (d) all three were involved and the fact of Rudy's DNA being there does not cancel out Amanda or Raff's DNA.

Gill is arguing that the DNA relating to Amanda and Raff is contaminated, but that relating to Rudy is not. This is repulsive logic to a reasonable ethical person, whether pro or con.

Once again, you are in possession of a powerful critique of Gill's work, which should be lifted to the light of day.

Please forward these concerns to Forensic Science International: Genetics so that they can publish an immediate retraction. Perhaps they will even get the ball rolling on disciplinary action against Gill.

 

[Grinder]

No. If Raff's DNA came from the door handle, then it follows, so might have Rudy's. We know Rudy was there. However, he claims his presence was innocent. You can't just say, we know Rudy was there and we don't believe he had a date, therefore it doesn't matter if his DNA is robust or not, because as scientists, we are objectively assessing what the DNA evidence is, regardless of any other evidence, or whether Rudy was there on a date, or there to burgle (Americans: there is no such word as "burglarize"; ugh!).

We won the war and what we says goes - burglarize is a word and boot isn't a part of a car. Rudi was there during the murder by all accounts. There was no innocent explanation for his DNA being in the cottage from previous times but who cares? He was there during the murder notwithstanding his DNA.

There is no sign of Rudy's DNA in the "burgled"room, nor the bathroom. There was one on the bag, one on Mez' body, one on the bra and one on the sweater. That is hardly "multiple" when we have at least FIVE DNA samples of Amanda mixed with Mez, when they bled at the same time, including a trail of Mez' blood leading into the burgled room, mixed with Amanda's DNA.

The junior college graduate posing as a doctor didn't test the room that was burglarized as it should have been. Besides he said he was in it.

If the collection and analysis of the kids DNA is contaminated, then objectively and ethically, we have to say the same for Rudy's.

Not really but since he left basket full of evidence it isn't needed.

DNA science shouldn't be about opinion, depending on how much you like the persons involved or your belief in whether they should or should not be present.

correct and <Dr. Steffi should have stopped testing the knife on the first too low. But she had an opinion about Amanda.

Gill's big downfall is his lack of objectivity and open advocacy for the kids - both breaches of professional ethics - presumably based on his preconceptions about "Rudy the migrant drifter burglar".

Ever read what Mignini said about Amanda?

 

[Vixen]

I witness a collision at an intersection. A Mercury Villager runs a red light and t-bones a Volkswagen Cabriolet.

At court, I say on direct examination: "The Mercury Villager ran the red light, and t-boned the Volkswagen Cabriolet which was eastbound on a green-light."

Under cross-examination, the lawyer for the driver of the Villager asks, "When did you start this PR campaign of advocacy against my client?"

My answer: "After I saw him run the red light and t-bone the Cabriolet."

The lawyer petitions the court to have my testimony thrown out as shameless advocacy.

In Vixen's world, the judge agrees and the whole case is thrown out.

If you witness such an event, and then go to the newspapers, tv and other media to advocate blame of either one of the drivers, I can guarantee the court will take a very dim view of your behaviour, and you might even be ordered out of the court as an unreliable witness.

I have seen this happen. Judges don't like witnesses who try to manipulate the verdict.

 

[Vixen]

We won the war and what we says goes - burglarize is a word and boot isn't a part of a car. Rudi was there during the murder by all accounts. There was no innocent explanation for his DNA being in the cottage from previous times but who cares? He was there during the murder notwithstanding his DNA.



The junior college graduate posing as a doctor didn't test the room that was burglarized as it should have been. Besides he said he was in it.



Not really but since he left basket full of evidence it isn't needed.



correct and <Dr. Steffi should have stopped testing the knife on the first too low. But she had an opinion about Amanda.



Ever read what Mignini said about Amanda?

Once again you are using circular logic: "we don't need to bother about Rudy's DNA evidence as we've already decided he was the killer".

I will reviserize what Mignini had to sayerize about Amanda.

 

[Grinder]

Once again you are using circular logic: "we don't need to bother about Rudy's DNA evidence as we've already decided he was the killer".

I will reviserize what Mignini had to sayerize about Amanda.

No. The other evidence including his own statements put him at the murder when it happened. Throw out all DNA and Rudi was provably at the scene during the murder. He also covered any evidence in F's room by saying he walked in to look out the window.

Do you deny he was there?

 

[Bill Williams]

I witness a collision at an intersection. A Mercury Villager runs a red light and t-bones a Volkswagen Cabriolet.

At court, I say on direct examination: "The Mercury Villager ran the red light, and t-boned the Volkswagen Cabriolet which was eastbound on a green-light."

Under cross-examination, the lawyer for the driver of the Villager asks, "When did you start this PR campaign of advocacy against my client?"

My answer: "After I saw him run the red light and t-bone the Cabriolet."

The lawyer petitions the court to have my testimony thrown out as shameless advocacy.

In Vixen's world, the judge agrees and the whole case is thrown out.

If you witness such an event, and then go to the newspapers, tv and other media to advocate blame of either one of the drivers, I can guarantee the court will take a very dim view of your behaviour, and you might even be ordered out of the court as an unreliable witness.

I have seen this happen. Judges don't like witnesses who try to manipulate the verdict.

Please note that nowhere did the cross-examining lawyer do anything other than assert that it was a "PR campaign of advocacy." It appears that the judge in Vixen's world takes assertions as facts. However that did not stop Vixen from embellishing the story to include me going to the press myself.... when I did no such thing.

But then again, which witnesses in the murder investigation from Perugia in 2007 were first spotted by the inept cops because the media found them?

 

[Antony]

The article points out that plenty of expert witnesses were heard.

It works both ways, for example, the "expert" who claimed it was a statistical certainty that two of a woman's babies could not both have died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) thus condemning her to jail and a pardon years later and leading to suicide by alcoholism.

The scientific experts should stick to the facts and not pretend that just because they are top of their field they can make things up to sway the court, just because of personal sympathy to either victim or defendant. It's the ethical issue of integrity.

No it doesn't "work both ways". From your posting history, it's clear that "Presumption of Innocence" is a concept that has no meaning to you, so I wouldn't expect you to understand the point.

See also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9389000/9389553.stm

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen - this is for your information. You have uncovered a massive fraud in the way Dr. Peter Gill wrote about the Sollecito/Knox case in Italy.

Here's how you contact Forensic Science International: Genetics....

http://www.fsigenetics.com/

The "Ask a Question" pop-up box comes from clicking on the Help & Contact link at the bottom of the main page.

Would you rather send physical mail, rather than e-mail?

Please do not forget to have them order a full investigation into their peer review process. This is not just a fraud that Dr. Peter Gill is fomenting - it is more massive than that. It extends to the editors of the journal and the people they farmed Gill's piece out to.

Those reviewers are either obviously part of the massive conspiracy - obviously receiving money from the massive PR efforts; or they are incompetent. Either way, it is now your ethical duty to get this ball rolling.

This cannot be allowed to continue.

 

[acbytesla]

You fail to grasp that the DNA issue is not about the personalities involved. The PIP are completely unable to separate their advocacy from straightforward logic. For example, they will say of Amanda's DNA mixed with Mez' "Oh, that's all right, she lived there!"

In other words they are prepared to excuse the hard scientific evidence of Amanda being there whilst Mez bled to death, or within half an hour of it, as blood begins clotting straight away and dries quickly. Yet Rudy being there, whether innocently or not, is automatically "the sole killer" by virtue of it.

This clearly demonstrates not only scientific ignorance, but an absence of applied logic since it shows nothing of the kind. Amanda's DNA could have been deposited there ANY time in the previous 40 days or even after. That's the actual truth.

An objective person will realise there are many likely scenarios, which will differ according to whether (a) Rudy was a burglar with at least two knives (b) Amanda and Raff were there and the burglary was staged, by implication, by them, but that's no proof they were involved (Bruno-Marasca) (c) Rudy was there on a date, whether imagined or real, so of course his DNA is on the victim's body, as they made out, or (d) all three were involved and the fact of Rudy's DNA being there does not cancel out Amanda or Raff's DNA.

Gill is arguing that the DNA relating to Amanda and Raff is contaminated, but that relating to Rudy is not. This is repulsive logic to a reasonable ethical person, whether pro or con.

Sorry, but objective people including many world renowned scientists disagree with you. I particularly enjoy watching you dismiss the opinion of the father of forensic DNA. I'm sure your experience bookkeeping makes you qualified to question his opinion.

 

[Numbers]

Whoever wrote it is a liar. There were not "multiple traces of Rudy DNA". In fact, the bathroom and faked burglary room are conspicuous by its absence. In all there was only about three of Rudy's DNA samples found. The sweater which had his DNA on the cuff, was collected the same time as the bra clasp.

Presumably Peter Gill is claiming all of that comes from the door knob, too.

Has anyone peer reviewed Gill's bogus claims on behalf of the defense?

It's rather illogical he should brag that none of Amanda's DNA was found in the murder room, when the bloody woman lived there and must have been in Mez' room on numerous occasions! Der_!

For the sake of those who may not be familiar with Peter Gill, Ph.D., here is some information:

1. Peter Gill is currently at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Forensic Medicine and Drug Abuse Research

2. Peter Gill is author/co-author of 214 publications including many related to genetics and especially forensic genetics

3. Peter Gill, Alec Jeffreys, and David Werret were the authors of:
Forensic application of DNA ‘fingerprints’.
Nature 318(6046):577-9 · November 1985

(Jeffreys originated DNA STR profiling)

At the time of the 1985 publication, Gill was at the Central Research Establishment, Home Office Forensic Science Service, of the UK.

For those who may not be familiar with Forensic Science International: Genetics, where Peter Gill's recent article on the DNA aspects of this case were published, it describes itself as:

"Official journal of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG).

Forensic Science International: Genetics is specifically devoted to Forensic Genetics. This branch of Forensic Science can be defined as the application of genetics to human and non-human material (in the sense of a science with the purpose of studying inherited characteristics for the analysis of inter- and intra-specific variations in populations) for the resolution of legal conflicts."

Articles in Forensic Science International: Genetics are peer-reviewed. This journal is published by Elsevier, a well-known publisher of many quality science journals.

Sources:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Gill4/publications
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/forensic-science-international-genetics/

 

[NotEvenWrong]

In Peter Gill's summary, he lists 8 critical errors which were made both in the DNA interpretation and the way those errors were handled by the convicting courts:

​

Note #7, a point particularly close to any remaining question about whether or not Amanda Knox washed blood from her hands, and that evidence of this was found in the shared bathroom.
Acc. to Gill, that is simply bad science to assume that. There are many, many other more probable reasons why their respective DNA would be found in a bathroom they shared. And that is before considering the collection techniques of broad swaths of a collection swab.

Gill's list is complete rubbish. The forensics team made no such assumptions. They are not idiots!

That is hardly "multiple" when we have at least FIVE DNA samples of Amanda mixed with Mez, when they bled at the same time, including a trail of Mez' blood leading into the burgled room, mixed with Amanda's DNA.

Gill: The forensic team made a faulty assumption in that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's implies it was from the murder.

Vixen: The forensics team made no such assumptions!!! They are not idiots.

(3 posts later)

Vixen: Amanda's DNA was mixed with Mezzz, therefore they bled at the same time and Amanda killed Meredith!!!!!1


You can't make this up folks. Yes, this is the type of person we have been trying to deal with. Have the proper authorities been notified that there has been an asylum breakout? Or do they just get free wifi over at the PMF nuthouse?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen - this is for your information. You have uncovered a massive fraud in the way Dr. Peter Gill wrote about the Sollecito/Knox case in Italy.

Here's how you contact Forensic Science International: Genetics....

http://www.fsigenetics.com/

The "Ask a Question" pop-up box comes from clicking on the Help & Contact link at the bottom of the main page.

Would you rather send physical mail, rather than e-mail?

Please do not forget to have them order a full investigation into their peer review process. This is not just a fraud that Dr. Peter Gill is fomenting - it is more massive than that. It extends to the editors of the journal and the people they farmed Gill's piece out to.

Those reviewers are either obviously part of the massive conspiracy - obviously receiving money from the massive PR efforts; or they are incompetent. Either way, it is now your ethical duty to get this ball rolling.

This cannot be allowed to continue.

He has based his article on the discredited Conti-Vecchiotti report, who made all sorts of fraudulent assertions, such as the Rome Forensics not being up to international standards (a blatant lie) which Bruno-Marasca repeat when they talk of the "investigative flaws" and that sample 36(i) was too LCN to be tested, and anyway, was rye starch, made a unilateral decision not to test it, without seeking the permission of the court...the list is endless. Chieffi accused the pair of intellectual dishonesty. Their labs got closed down unceremoniously with piles of unclaimed cadavers in every corner. The lawyer, Luca Maori has a pending complaint against him, including tampering with witnesses, Conti & Vecchiotti, wining and dining with them, etc.

So, Bill, who is the "peer" who reviewed Gill's work? Don't tell me, the lawyer "who thoroughly reviewed Gill's work" is...Luca Maori...? Well, well, well.

I hope this web of cloak and daggers corruption gets investigated by the highest authorities.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

So, Bill, who is the "peer" who reviewed Gill's work? Don't tell me, the lawyer "who thoroughly reviewed Gill's work" is...Luca Maori...? Well, well, well.

Vixen, for the 10th time, articles that are published in the top forensic journal in the world are peer reviewed BEFORE they are published. The list of the other top forensic scientists who do the review before confirming it for publication in the top forensic journal in the world are not necessarily made public.

This implies it is a better source of information than PMF and TJMK and the opinion of a community college lab tech who works for the prosecution. Lol I can't believe I needed to say that.

 

[Vixen]

No it doesn't "work both ways". From your posting history, it's clear that "Presumption of Innocence" is a concept that has no meaning to you, so I wouldn't expect you to understand the point.

See also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9389000/9389553.stm

Might be an idea to open a separate thread.

 

[Bill Williams]

He has based his article on the discredited Conti-Vecchiotti report, who made all sorts of fraudulent assertions, such as the Rome Forensics not being up to international standards (a blatant lie) which Bruno-Marasca repeat when they talk of the "investigative flaws" and that sample 36(i) was too LCN to be tested, and anyway, was rye starch, made a unilateral decision not to test it, without seeking the permission of the court...the list is endless. Chieffi accused the pair of intellectual dishonesty. Their labs go closed down unceremoniously with piles of unclaimed cadavers in every corner. The lawyer, Luca Maori has a pending complaint against him, including tampering with witnesses, Conti & Vecchiotti, wining and dining with them, etc.

So, Bill, who is the "peer" who reviewed Gill's work? Don't tell me, the lawyer "who thoroughly reviewed Gill's work" is...Luca Maori...? Well, well, well.

I hope this web of cloak and daggers corruption gets investigated by the highest authorities.

Why simply hope? Take action. Let us know what happens.

My bet is that you end up including FSI:G in the conspiracy. You first task is to stop guessing as to the identities of the peer reviewers. Insist that FSI:G release their names. Don't take "no" for an answer.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Anyway, even if we had the explicit list of forensic scientists who reviewed Gill's paper for publication in the top forensic science journal on Earth, and that list of scientists ended up being the top 5-10 most well respected peerless forensic genetic experts in existence, we know that they would then become targets for the guilter nuthouse and you would begin trying to come up with rationalizations on how all their labs were shut down unceremoniously and Amanda's PR campaign sure must have gotten to them with a big payday!!!

We know you would do this because YOU ACTUALLY DO THIS WITH EVERY TOP EXPERT WHO COMES OUT IN SUPPORT OF OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT PEOPLE. But that lab tech for the prosecution. Oh man her work was impeccable. After all Perugian law enforcement never makes mistakes so all the other experts on the planet must be wrong by definition.