Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[andreajo]

What Vixen is trying to say is that if there were a savage murder in your house (well, not your house, but your friend's house. Not like we need to be consistent though, right Vixen?), you would be screwed because there would be a bunch of loony toons on the internet who would then take a mop and bucket in your house used for cleaning as proof you are guilty.

Even if, as an example, there was no DNA evidence of you at the crime scene and there was DNA of a burglar everywhere. This would of course imply you were into vampire manga so it must have been a 4 way pagan murder orgy. Oh, and you also pay off international forensic societies to publish papers on the misuse of DNA evidence. I think that is the rational conclusion from finding a mop and bucket.

The DNA in your sink, so seemingly benign only a few hours earlier, would take on a new and sinister aspect.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

The DNA in your sink, so seemingly benign only a few hours earlier, would take on a new and sinister aspect.

Yeah, if you are crazy enough, anyone is "clearly guilty" no matter how weak the evidence, no matter how many experts speak out against it, no matter how many papers published in renowned international science journals show the evidence is faulty.

All you have to do is attribute new benign facts as "evidence" someone is guilty. This DNA in my sink? (that would be there from brushing my teeth) guilty!! This mop and bucket I use to clean the floor (that would be there just for general cleaning purposes, the way it is for anyone else who actually cleans their home) guilty!!! must be used to mop up blood and DNA. Yes, the mop is magic as it identified the actual perp's DNA and cleaned around it. Own a manga comic, an extremely popular style of comic book. Guilty!!! must be into vampire murder slayings. It's Halloween? Guilty!!! That is the time for neopagan murder rituals among college students who collect manga (lol I still can't get over this one).

Sometimes I think life would be so much easier being super crazy. You could go through life making crap up in your head all the time and never realize the horror that you may be wrong about something (gasp!).

 

[NotEvenWrong]

BTW, Vixen, did you want to discuss that report by Vinci? You posted a blurry screenshot of a document that was hard to read, out of context (what did the conclusions say?), and left out the methodology. Can you post the full context? Preferably translated so, you know, we can read it and discuss it since this is a discussion forum?

Or, since you haven't brought it up since then, was your intention to post an out of context factoid to imply something in a roundabout way about the evidence in this case (that wasn't even spoken about at any of the trials) that is almost certainly false, in order to slow flood the thread and disrupt discussion yet again, and spread lies and misinformation?

It's either that, or you actually wanted to discuss something. Any reason you haven't said anything about it since then?

 

[Grinder]

Yet you, or your fellow PGP, have no hesitation in claiming a conspiracy of the masons when it comes to Hellmann and Bruno/Marasca. But the tame PGP judges are supposed to be infallible and unchallengeable.

Don't you see the contradiction here? You have Massei, Nencini and Chieffi on your side, we have Hellmann and Marasca/Bruno. Appeals to authority and sarcasm about "conspiracies" have no logic to them.

The point is Hellmann was right and Chieffi was wrong. The facts are clearly on the side of innocence in this case.

Don't take this wrong but it is possible that in order to get justice in Italy payoffs may be necessary. Like bribing a cop in Mexico not to arrest you for a traffic accident that wasn't your fault. Sure you can refuse and go to jail or grease his palm and drive away.

It wasn't very long ago that people in Italy had to prove their innocence. It is possible that the convicters were just old school and the acquitters were new school and could easily see what all could see, the kids were not guilty BARD. But look at what happened after Hellmann and M&B. Hellmann in one of the articles makes clear he was harassed after his verdict and it sounds the same for M&B. If it ended his career what would be a fair severance pay?

Just like cops in England and around the world will plant evidence to convict a guilty person - "noble cause corruption" - the Italian courts still convict the innocent if the prosecution tells them the defendant is guilty.

Of course there is no evidence for the PGP to point to on bribes but they don't seem to need evidence to be sure of guilt.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course there is no evidence for the PGP to point to on bribes but they don't seem to need evidence to be sure of guilt.

Everyone who could have come forward has themselves in turn been bribed. The baby needs new shoes.

 

[Bill Williams]

BTW, Vixen, did you want to discuss that report by Vinci? You posted a blurry screenshot of a document that was hard to read, out of context (what did the conclusions say?), and left out the methodology. Can you post the full context? Preferably translated so, you know, we can read it and discuss it since this is a discussion forum?

Or, since you haven't brought it up since then, was your intention to post an out of context factoid to imply something in a roundabout way about the evidence in this case (that wasn't even spoken about at any of the trials) that is almost certainly false, in order to slow flood the thread and disrupt discussion yet again, and spread lies and misinformation?

It's either that, or you actually wanted to discuss something. Any reason you haven't said anything about it since then?

Slow the thread and disrupt discussion? Sounds like slow-flooding to me.

Then again if it weren't for this there'd be nothing to discuss. The whole issue of AK and RS's involvement was definitely dismissed a year ago.

 

[Vixen]

Yeah, if you are crazy enough, anyone is "clearly guilty" no matter how weak the evidence, no matter how many experts speak out against it, no matter how many papers published in renowned international science journals show the evidence is faulty.

All you have to do is attribute new benign facts as "evidence" someone is guilty. This DNA in my sink? (that would be there from brushing my teeth) guilty!! This mop and bucket I use to clean the floor (that would be there just for general cleaning purposes, the way it is for anyone else who actually cleans their home) guilty!!! must be used to mop up blood and DNA. Yes, the mop is magic as it identified the actual perp's DNA and cleaned around it. Own a manga comic, an extremely popular style of comic book. Guilty!!! must be into vampire murder slayings. It's Halloween? Guilty!!! That is the time for neopagan murder rituals among college students who collect manga (lol I still can't get over this one).

Sometimes I think life would be so much easier being super crazy. You could go through life making crap up in your head all the time and never realize the horror that you may be wrong about something (gasp!).

Wow, NEW, if only you'd been Amanda's attorney from Day 1! Why, the court would have dismissed the entire case immediately!

 

[Vixen]

Slow the thread and disrupt discussion? Sounds like slow-flooding to me.

Then again if it weren't for this there'd be nothing to discuss. The whole issue of AK and RS's involvement was definitely dismissed a year ago.

Well, Hun, there's only another 5,502 posts to go, before I catch up with you.

You hare, me tortoise.

 

[Vixen]

BTW, Vixen, did you want to discuss that report by Vinci? You posted a blurry screenshot of a document that was hard to read, out of context (what did the conclusions say?), and left out the methodology. Can you post the full context? Preferably translated so, you know, we can read it and discuss it since this is a discussion forum?

Or, since you haven't brought it up since then, was your intention to post an out of context factoid to imply something in a roundabout way about the evidence in this case (that wasn't even spoken about at any of the trials) that is almost certainly false, in order to slow flood the thread and disrupt discussion yet again, and spread lies and misinformation?

It's either that, or you actually wanted to discuss something. Any reason you haven't said anything about it since then?

I did pose the question whether Rudy's DNA is accurate and Amanda's a "transfer from the door knob", but no-one seemed to want to take on the issue of Rudy's and Amanda's DNA being present on Mez' bra. Not a finding by Stefanoni, but the defence's own Professor "Photoshop" Vinci (for it is he).

Start the ball rolling, NEW, you and bagels have such good imaginations.

 

[Vixen]

At 1:55? Doesn't look like a pail of gloves. Can you find any mention of these "gloves" in your beloved court file. My SO always wears gloves when washing dishes or cleaning. So unless the alleged gloves have something suspicious on them, so what?

There were also two cartons of milk. Why would anyone need two? Hmmmmm.

I see. Real men don't wear Marigolds.

I have a couple of pairs of heavy duty rubber gloves in my pail under the sink.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, Hun, there's only another 5,502 posts to go, before I catch up with you.

You hare, me tortoise.

Not exactly the definition of slow-flooding. That concept includes posting a pic of bars on the window below Filomena's and claiming it shows there are no bars. It includes posting a fuzzy pic attributed to a report from Vinci, which does not sustain what you said it sustained. It includes providing a link to a video of Raffaele's apartment claiming it proves something and then it proves no such thing.

Then there is the opinion you provided that Raffaele was their suspect when he was called into interrogation on Nov 5th, something the PLE have avoided saying. Then again, you might be on to something about that, because Mignini was recently censured by his peers for denying Raffaele his rights at interrogation.

Twice you have apologized for posting something you claimed was proof of a point you were making, when it showed no such thing. When you said DNA was a protein, you issued a half-apology. All of that was appreciated and goes against the "slow-flooding" observation.

It's not about the number of posts. Slow-flooding has as its purpose a "denial of service" by pushing out legitimate dialog. Then again, since this case against AK and RS was definitively acquitted a year ago, there may not be much left but what you do.

So have at it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, Hun, there's only another 5,502 posts to go, before I catch up with you.

You hare, me tortoise.

How did Grinder get 1 lousy post ahead of me?

 

[Vixen]

Not exactly the definition of slow-flooding. That concept includes posting a pic of bars on the window below Filomena's and claiming it shows there are no bars. It includes posting a fuzzy pic attributed to a report from Vinci, which does not sustain what you said it sustained. It includes providing a link to a video of Raffaele's apartment claiming it proves something and then it proves no such thing.

Then there is the opinion you provided that Raffaele was their suspect when he was called into interrogation on Nov 5th, something the PLE have avoided saying. Then again, you might be on to something about that, because Mignini was recently censured by his peers for denying Raffaele his rights at interrogation.

Twice you have apologized for posting something you claimed was proof of a point you were making, when it showed no such thing. When you said DNA was a protein, you issued a half-apology. All of that was appreciated and goes against the "slow-flooding" observation.

It's not about the number of posts. Slow-flooding has as its purpose a "denial of service" by pushing out legitimate dialog. Then again, since this case against AK and RS was definitively acquitted a year ago, there may not be much left but what you do.

So have at it.

You are a colluder as you have posted dozens of messages to keep the window bars debate going.

 

[Vixen]

How did Grinder get 1 lousy post ahead of me?

He likes to be one up.

 

[Bill Williams]

He likes to be one up.

LOL!!!!

See! We can get along!

 

[Bill Williams]

You are a colluder as you have posted dozens of messages to keep the window bars debate going.

True on the colluder part. False on the "debate" part. Your pic showed the bars. You said they weren't there.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I did pose the question whether Rudy's DNA is accurate and Amanda's a "transfer from the door knob", but no-one seemed to want to take on the issue of Rudy's and Amanda's DNA being present on Mez' bra. Not a finding by Stefanoni, but the defence's own Professor "Photoshop" Vinci (for it is he).

Start the ball rolling, NEW, you and bagels have such good imaginations.

I think you misunderstood me. I am very much doubting your assertion that Amanda's DNA was on the bra clasp, and I want to see a clear, readable copy of Vinci's report, not a blurry screenshot that is nearly impossible to make out. Context included. In particular, his conclusions and methodology.

Again (without seeing the context, since you only posted a tiny part of the report that was barely readable. Similar to how you said Raffaele had a Devil manga tattoo on his shoulder by posting a picture where you couldn't tell what the tattoo actually was), what I am guessing that section of the report is saying is that Amanda's profile was *compatible* with the sample taken from the bra clasp at certain loci. Unless Amanda's profile matched at a sufficient number of loci and a statistical analysis concluded that Amanda's DNA was on the bra clasp, this is entirely meaningless. There were 5 contributors to the DNA sample on the bra clasp -- Amanda's will match some loci by sheer random chance (as would you or I, or anyone else).

So, again I ask: can you post a non-blurry copy of the FULL REPORT. English translation preferred for obvious reasons, but let's at least start with the full context of the document under discussion so it's at least in principle possible to translate and understand what Vinci was saying.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Wow, NEW, if only you'd been Amanda's attorney from Day 1! Why, the court would have dismissed the entire case immediately!

I'm not a lawyer, and Mignini obviously had undue influence over the entire process, so my rational analysis probably would not have had much impact on the first court. In fact I probably would be dealing with a slander lawsuit right now since Mignini sues anyone who defends a client he is trying to prosecute. No thanks.

 

[bagels]

I did pose the question whether Rudy's DNA is accurate and Amanda's a "transfer from the door knob", but no-one seemed to want to take on the issue of Rudy's and Amanda's DNA being present on Mez' bra. Not a finding by Stefanoni, but the defence's own Professor "Photoshop" Vinci (for it is he).

Start the ball rolling, NEW, you and bagels have such good imaginations.

David Balding said this on the extra clasp DNA:

"Are there contributors other than Raffaele Sollecito and Meredith Kercher to the autosomal profiles? If so, how does the presence of this additional DNA affect the bra clasp as evidence?

Yes, Conti-Vecchiotti identified a further 12 above-threshold peaks at alleles that could not have come from Sollecito or Kercher. They correctly criticised the scientific police for ignoring these: many do appear to be stutter peaks which are usually ignored, but 4 are not and definitely indicate DNA from another individual. The extra peaks are all low, so the extra individuals contributed very little DNA. That kind of extraneous DNA is routine in low-template work: our environment is covered with DNA from breath and touch, including a lot of fragmentary DNA from degraded cells that can show up in low-template analyses. There is virtually no crime sample that doesn't have some environmental DNA on it, from individuals not directly involved in the crime. This does create additional uncertainty in the analysis because of the extra ambiguity about the true profile of the contributor of interest, but as long as it is correctly allowed for in the analysis there is no problem - it is completely routine."

 

[Vixen]

David Balding said this on the extra clasp DNA:

"Are there contributors other than Raffaele Sollecito and Meredith Kercher to the autosomal profiles? If so, how does the presence of this additional DNA affect the bra clasp as evidence?

Yes, Conti-Vecchiotti identified a further 12 above-threshold peaks at alleles that could not have come from Sollecito or Kercher. They correctly criticised the scientific police for ignoring these: many do appear to be stutter peaks which are usually ignored, but 4 are not and definitely indicate DNA from another individual. The extra peaks are all low, so the extra individuals contributed very little DNA. That kind of extraneous DNA is routine in low-template work: our environment is covered with DNA from breath and touch, including a lot of fragmentary DNA from degraded cells that can show up in low-template analyses. There is virtually no crime sample that doesn't have some environmental DNA on it, from individuals not directly involved in the crime. This does create additional uncertainty in the analysis because of the extra ambiguity about the true profile of the contributor of interest, but as long as it is correctly allowed for in the analysis there is no problem - it is completely routine."

Only problem is, the other allelles are Rudy's and Amanda's. So, Rudy's is accurate, but Amanda's is "contamination"? Why is Raff throwing Amanda under the bus by publicising her presence?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-bloody-bra-claim-ex-boyfriends-lawyers.html