Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Methos answered that for you; it was in the cottage.
The mop? You mean the one that tested negative for blood? The one she used to clean the hallway with the invisible intact footprints? How do you wipe a floor with a mop and leave intact footprints?

As Nencini said, the pair gave a false alibi as to where they were between 9:30 and 12:30 and where at the murder cottage not at Raff's apartment. In addition, Quintavalle, whom Nencini found a reliable witness, said the woman who came to his store first thing in the morning looked absolutely wrecked, as though she had barely slept.

NB Stacy you need to use '

' to start a quote and

to finish it, otherwise it doesn't format.

 

[Numbers]

Again, with due respect, you're missing a lot here.

First and foremost, the compelling issue about ECHR and issues of equality of arms and full disclosure at all stages of the process, etc., ignores that the ECHR deals with complaint driven processes.

Meaning that the ECHR has no internal investigative force which on its own investigates these things.

That fact alone puts people whose rights have been trampled on at a disadvantage. Esp. in Italy, where one can be tied up in court for up to a decade paying for competent defence - and often being billed for the prosecution's analysis of some factoid.

One can quickly run out of money - so I would argue that these ECHR rights fast become meaningless if unavailable at a practical level. Most certainly Italy would not be in a hurry to conform to ECHR standards if people like Mignini knew their abuses would often never see the light of day.

Marasca-Bruno have a long discussion in their Sept 2015 report about one item of appeal from (I think it was Sollecito) where the length of the trial-process from charge to ISC-final disposition was itself flagged. (In Canada here, it is the Askov ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Askov , in the ECHR it is Article 6). I would suggest that that is an even bigger human rights concern than full disclosure, but even B/M makes an impassioned defence of why the unwieldy Italian process does not violate it.

Still - with it being a complaint driven process, totally dependent on remaining resources of a complainant, it is not as simply as your post implies.

Your post makes some good points, but it does not convey the full picture with regard to how a CoE State enforces all fails to enforce its laws whether they derive from ECHR case-law or its own Constitution and procedural law.

Some States consistently violate their own laws and ECHR case-law. Others attempt to follow such laws strictly. Some may fall between these two extremes. ECHR has no enforcement powers by itself; the Committee of Ministers of the CoE has a "supervisory" role in seeing to the execution of ECHR judgments.

The question is where Italy chooses to place itself in the spectrum of a State obeying its own laws including its Constitution, the Convention and ECHR. In the Knox-Sollecito case, despite the more lawful rulings of the Marasca CSC panel and Boninsigna court, the unlawful arrests and unfair provisional convictions leaves the impression that Italy tends not to obey it own laws, Constitution, the Convention, and ECHR.

Bill, I thought it was clear that I was (mostly) agreeing with you.

The ECHR is a court and thus, at least as in the common-law systems (such as the US and England/Wales) only responds with rulings for cases brought before it. It does not have a police force or any kind of enforcement arm, and does not have any direct ability to change verdicts of domestic (national) courts or the actions of national governments of the States that have solemnly pledged, by treaty, to obey the European Convention on Human Rights and the final case-law judgments of the ECHR. Those States are organized as a confederation, the Council of Europe (CoE), whose sole aim is to promote and defend human rights, including but not limited to democratic government rights (free speech and fair elections), property rights, family and personality rights, and the rights to fair trials in civil and criminal cases. There is a "supervising" organ of the CoE, the Committee of Ministers, which exercises diplomatic pressure to seek compliance with ECHR judgments on any State which does not by itself comply, but this mechanism is inherently weaker for enforcement than one in a federation where the rulings of the highest federation court are enforceable, ultimately by actions of the federal executive. For example, US State judicial and executive branches must obey by law the rulings of the US Supreme Court in any case relating to US Federal law or Constitution.

Here is some information on how ECHR judgments are supervised.

http://www.coe.int/en/web/cm/execution-judgments

Supervision of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

In accordance with Article 46 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11, the Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. This work is carried out mainly at four regular meetings (DH meetings) every year.

Documentation for these meetings takes the form of the Annotated Order of Business. The content of this document is made public, as are, in general, the decisions taken in each case.

The Committee of Ministers' essential function is to ensure that member states comply with the judgments and certain decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Committee completes each case by adopting a final resolution. In some cases, interim resolutions may prove appropriate. Both kinds of Resolutions are public.

Applicants can access the Resolutions adopted concerning their case (see the box "Adopted texts" below).

The Committee of Ministers (the Foreign Ministers of the 47 CoE States and their Deputies; the Deputies attend all the meetings, the Ministers apparently only one meeting per year) supervises the execution of ECHR judgments - when there is some need - by following up on an "Action Plan" put forward by a State judged to have violated an article of the Convention. The Action Plan may include individual measures (such as a rehearing of a case) and general measures (such as revision of domestic laws). The report of a recent meeting of the Committee of Ministers is at:

https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016806661f6

The report is quite long; I reproduce below excerpts from one item relating to one case where the Committee of Ministers is disappointed that the Respondent State has not moved forward to redress the violation.

Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)144
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Ilgar Mammadov against Azerbaijan

15172/13 ILGAR MAMMADOV 22/05/2014 13/10/2014

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 June 2016
at the 1259th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46 § 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provide that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court” below);

Deeply deploring that, despite the Court’s findings on the fundamental flaws of the criminal proceedings engaged against him and notwithstanding the Committee’s repeated calls, the applicant still has not been released; Recalling that it is intolerable that, in a State subject to the rule of law, a person should continue to be deprived of his liberty on the basis of proceedings engaged, in breach of the Convention, with a view to punishing him for having criticised the government; Recalling that the obligation to abide by the judgments of the Court is unconditional; INSISTS that the highest competent authorities of the respondent State take all necessary measures to ensure without further delay Ilgar Mammadov’s release; DECLARES the Committee’s resolve to ensure, with all means available to the Organisation, Azerbaijan’s compliance with its obligations under this judgment; DECIDES in view thereof to examine the applicant’s situation at each regular and Human Rights meeting of the Committee until such time as he is released.

So it is clear that a State can resist fulfilling its obligations under the Convention treaty and it will suffer continual unfavorable notice in the meetings of the Committee of Ministers with declarations of resolve.

But, of course, a State which does not fulfill its Convention obligations may suffer a loss of reputation that it may eventually find unacceptable, leading it to conform to the ECHR judgment. Italy and other Western European States tend to fulfill their Convention obligations, although sometimes, especially for Italy, with some delay.

 

[Bill Williams]

From his report re the luminol:



Nothing about the 'selective cleaning' Marasca mentions.

Nencini goes objectively through all of the genetic and scientific evidence, including that of Rudy's, point by point.

Regarding the blood in the bathroom:



As for the issue of compatibility and identity, which part of Nencini is an abuse of his office, as claimed by Marasca?:



Where, here, does Nencini show any sign of ignoring scientifc protocl?:



Nencini's reasoning for ruling out contamination of the knife is entirely within the bounds of a reasonable decision:



Regarding the bra clasp. I cannot see anything that should merit Marasca's reprimand of Nencini:



In fact, Nencini's reasoning is objective, clear and rational:




So, in effect, an unfair and unkind evaluation by Marasca.

You wish to be addressed civilly. Fair enough.

I beg you then to reread the portions of the Nencini MR you offer as rebuttal to Marasca/Bruno's annulling of his convictions.

Those sections rebut nothing, particularly the one offered to "prove" Nencini understood the distinction between compatibility and identity as forensic measures.

And to repeat, it is incredible you believe Nencini's quotes about Novelli amount to a peer reviewed support of Stefanoni's work.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

From his report re the luminol:



Nothing about the 'selective cleaning' Marasca mentions.

Nencini goes objectively through all of the genetic and scientific evidence, including that of Rudy's, point by point.

Regarding the blood in the bathroom:



As for the issue of compatibility and identity, which part of Nencini is an abuse of his office, as claimed by Marasca?:



Where, here, does Nencini show any sign of ignoring scientifc protocl?:



Nencini's reasoning for ruling out contamination of the knife is entirely within the bounds of a reasonable decision:



Regarding the bra clasp. I cannot see anything that should merit Marasca's reprimand of Nencini:



In fact, Nencini's reasoning is objective, clear and rational:




So, in effect, an unfair and unkind evaluation by Marasca.

Vixen,
We have firmly established that neither you nor Nencini can back up any of these claims with any evidence, and in fact both your and Nencini's opinions on the matter of the forensic evidence is completely 100% in contrast to the published literature on the matter. See here for one example:

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/abstract

Furthermore, you have been unable to provide a single scientific expert opinion post 2008, not a single expert opinion that was not working for the prosecution, that agrees with your and Nencini's opinion on the evidence.

Why is that Vixen? I'll tell you why: your opinion, and Nencini's opinion, on the forensic evidence demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge and experience in biology and genetics. No one (short of a lab tech working for the prosecution) will ever agree with you or Nencini on this, because your opinion is 100% wrong in every scientifically valid way you can think of. You can't just make scientific assertions without backing it up with evidence.

We have explained all of this to you hundreds of times. Yet you sit here and continue to post this nonsensical crap that has been refuted a hundred times a hundred times. Please stop shilling for your friend who is trying to profit off of Meredith's murder by selling a book. This is a skeptics forum. I am at a loss why you are allowed to continually post deliberate lies and misinformation that has been refuted every time you post it. All it does is disrupt legitimate discussion on this case. It isn't 2008 anymore, we've moved past all of the material you write about. It has long been refuted by some of the best forensic scientists in the field.

 

[bagels]

As Nencini said, the pair gave a false alibi as to where they were between 9:30 and 12:30 and where at the murder cottage not at Raff's apartment. In addition, Quintavalle, whom Nencini found a reliable witness, said the woman who came to his store first thing in the morning looked absolutely wrecked, as though she had barely slept.

NB Stacy you need to use ' to finish it, otherwise it doesn't format.

Hellmann didn't find their alibi false or Quintavalle reliable. What do you think about that?

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen,
We have firmly established that neither you nor Nencini can back up any of these claims with any evidence, and in fact both your and Nencini's opinions on the matter of the forensic evidence is completely 100% in contrast to the published literature on the matter. See here for one example:

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/abstract

Dr. Peter Gill makes an exceedingly good point about the testing of Exhibit 3, the single knife taken almost at random from Raffaele's.

Proper procedure would have required taken many knives, perhaps all of them from Raffaele's, not to mention all of them back at the crime scene itself. How many of them would have had Amanda's DNA on the handle? If Exhibit 36 was the only one with Amanda's there, that is damning, particularly if the finding of Meredith's on the blade had had something to do with the crime.

Yet if Amanda's DNA presence is on all the knives, esp. at Raffaele's, that means simply that she used them - there is no time-stamp for when it was deposited; and would completely dilute Exhibit 36 as evidence.

As it was, Dr. Gill goes through the multiple violations in the transport of the knife, as well as the way Stefanoni's lab was undocumented as to anti-contamination protocols, rendering her work meaningless anyway.

Gill also trashes Nencini for fundamentally misinterpreting why one can be sure contamination did not happen.

The Marasca-Bruno Motivations Report, which quashed the
convictions, was particularly critical about the failure to carry out
replicate tests:

“ . . . .one must ask what the relative value can be to the
proceedings if they do not permit repetition, regardless of the
theoretical debate on the identification [of] more or less scientific of
the findings of investigations carried out on samples so minuscule
or complex.”​

The police scientist stated that she ran a negative amplification
control concurrently with sample “B” that had very low
background noise7. This finding was interpreted as evidence that
the item was not contaminated in the Nencini sentencing report
and this was a critical reason why the defendants were found
guilty. The same error was also made in relation to the bra-clasp.

However, this was also a serious error of interpretation. The
negative control is simply a blank or empty tube run concurrently
with the samples in the laboratory beginning at the extraction
stage of the analytical process. Consequently, it can only be used as
a control for potential reagent contamination. It cannot be used to
discount possible contamination, either at the crime scene or in the
examination room.​

Everyone, Vixen especially, should read Dr. Gill, and not make ham-handed claims that Professor Novelli is somehow saving Stefanoni, when Novelli is quoted by Nencini.

 

[Planigale]

Size 49? Heck, you could be a policeman . A size 14 will get you in the Met where you have to be super tall.

Seriously, though haven't you just disproved your own point? With Raff's footprint being size 42 and 100mm broad, and yours size 49 and also 100mm broad it proves decisively that each of us has a unique footprint (as we do a fingerprint). The footprint on the bathmat would match almost nobody, but its owner, and quelle surprise it is established the footprint is 'highly compatible' with Raff.

And not at all 'compatible' with Amanda or Rudy.

Q.E.D.::

It is a shame Birbeck did not teach fact checking in the courses you went to. Still I suppose if you did creative writing you are used to just making stuff up. There is no height requirement to join the Met as a PC.
http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/newconstable/apply.php

This reflects your broader approach to this case; just make a fact up.

 

[Planigale]

Oh, and this bit. This is a particularly ignorant observation by the Marasca court. This is because all forensic science is based on 'compatible with', whether it be fingerprints, footprints, DNA, blood group, haplotype, etc. For example, in fingerprint analysis, typically, in England & Wales, only eighteen points of 'compatibility with' are need for it to be a legal identification.

Some woman recently challenged a finding that showed fingerprints 'compatible with' hers. She disputed that some of the points used to match, where incorrect.

What I do not get is how seemingly intelligent and trained judges can accept fingerprint compatibilty but seem to believe DNA compatibility is done differently.

Even if compatibility is three billion to one against - as in the case of Raff's DNA on the bra clasp - it will be presented in the report as exactly that: 'compatible with'.


So, Marasca Court is just third grade rubbish.

The problem is you fail to recognise the differences between LCN DNA and trace DNA. Contamination is a fact. It occurs in the best laboratories. It occurred in Steffanoni although she denied it. The important thing is the chain of evidence one needs to be certain the DNA typed originated from the in this case the knife and was present when it was collected. In most jurisdictions the re-packaging of the knife at the police station in non-laboratory environment would have made it ineligible for DNA testing. The unique processing of the sample from the knife blade would also raise questions in particular why was a sample with no DNA put through for typing when this was not done for any other item of evidence? How did Steffanoni know that this one sample with no detectable DNA would give a critical result?

finally there is the interpretation of the laboratory findings given by Steffanoni.She should have informed the court that for trace DNA secondary transfer should be considered. Instead she gave the utterly unscientific opinion on how the presence of Knox's DNA on the handle meant she held it in a stabbing hold. Has any forensic scientist elsewhere in the world argued this? It is vixen level fantasy.

 

[Planigale]

City of London police had a minimum height requirement of 6'. It is now abolished in case it discriminates against ethnic groups who are naturally shorter.

There is nothing wrong with using photographs as long as the scale is correct.

How do you think they analyse fingerprints?

You originally referenced the Met. Now you reference the City of London police a completely different force.

 

[Vixen]

It is a shame Birbeck did not teach fact checking in the courses you went to. Still I suppose if you did creative writing you are used to just making stuff up. There is no height requirement to join the Met as a PC.
http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/newconstable/apply.php

This reflects your broader approach to this case; just make a fact up.

Oh, come off it. The super-tallness of City of London police is legendary. OK so I said Met by accident. I knew I had in mind central London police (who seem to look younger every day). Big Deal. It doesn't detract from the folk myth that 'policemen have big feet' and the chief at Holborn Station loved to boast that not one of his cops was under 6' tall.

The fact height requirements have since been abolished, doesn't cancel out the legend.

It's a pity you never learned to distinguish between an urban myth by jest from a point being put forward seriously.

ETA The fact that I know this and you and LondonJohn do not, illustrates how much more knowledgeable I am than you are, and you both have demonstrated neither of you are even aware of your own ignorance.

Yet you feel confident to make all kinds of assertions and to criticise those who are wiser than you, in your state of blissful ignorance.

 

[Vixen]

Dr. Peter Gill makes an exceedingly good point about the testing of Exhibit 3, the single knife taken almost at random from Raffaele's.

Proper procedure would have required taken many knives, perhaps all of them from Raffaele's, not to mention all of them back at the crime scene itself. How many of them would have had Amanda's DNA on the handle? If Exhibit 36 was the only one with Amanda's there, that is damning, particularly if the finding of Meredith's on the blade had had something to do with the crime.

Yet if Amanda's DNA presence is on all the knives, esp. at Raffaele's, that means simply that she used them - there is no time-stamp for when it was deposited; and would completely dilute Exhibit 36 as evidence.

As it was, Dr. Gill goes through the multiple violations in the transport of the knife, as well as the way Stefanoni's lab was undocumented as to anti-contamination protocols, rendering her work meaningless anyway.

Gill also trashes Nencini for fundamentally misinterpreting why one can be sure contamination did not happen.

​

Everyone, Vixen especially, should read Dr. Gill, and not make ham-handed claims that Professor Novelli is somehow saving Stefanoni, when Novelli is quoted by Nencini.

Prof Novelli, one of Italy's leading geneticists, was at the trial, took part in preparing a report from primary sources. He was cross-examined by all parties, including the judge.


Peter Gill got his info second hand from Friends of Amanda Knox enthusiasts who asked him, is there any scenario where DNA can be transferred from A to B, so he sat down and said in theory ceteris parabus it's remotely possible, and wrote a paper based on the whingings of the defence, and was no doubt paid handsomely for it.

Dr Gill was not invited to give evidence at the trial, did not have access to primary information, did not visit the forensic laboratories in Rome, did not subject himself to cross-examination and published his sycophantic article in praise of the kids in his own journal, reviewed by his own editorial board and by a defense lawyer (as he notes in his acknowledgements).


A court can only look at evidence put before it. Gill is just an 'opinion piece' and not a properly scientifically supervised research undertaking.

ETA In addition, as Nencini says, in a criminal trial, it is futile to talk of academic hypotheses of generalised possibilities of contamination. In a trial it has to be established as a real possibility, one way or the other, and the defence did not establish this, to anywhere near a high enough standard of proof to the kids'-championing Massei court, who was all for mitigating for the kids wherever it could, but had no choice but to convict given the overwhelming evidence against them, even without the definitive DNA results.

 

[Vixen]

You originally referenced the Met. Now you reference the City of London police a completely different force.

Well done. Point scored.

 

[Vixen]

The problem is you fail to recognise the differences between LCN DNA and trace DNA. Contamination is a fact. It occurs in the best laboratories. It occurred in Steffanoni although she denied it. The important thing is the chain of evidence one needs to be certain the DNA typed originated from the in this case the knife and was present when it was collected. In most jurisdictions the re-packaging of the knife at the police station in non-laboratory environment would have made it ineligible for DNA testing. The unique processing of the sample from the knife blade would also raise questions in particular why was a sample with no DNA put through for typing when this was not done for any other item of evidence? How did Steffanoni know that this one sample with no detectable DNA would give a critical result?

finally there is the interpretation of the laboratory findings given by Steffanoni.She should have informed the court that for trace DNA secondary transfer should be considered. Instead she gave the utterly unscientific opinion on how the presence of Knox's DNA on the handle meant she held it in a stabbing hold. Has any forensic scientist elsewhere in the world argued this? It is vixen level fantasy.

Didn't you read what Prof Novelli had to say (or are you higher than a professor?). He pointed out that the contamination 'noise' level is set at 35 RFU by Rome and 50 RFU in the USA (nota bene: Italy is not a US state) Anything over that noise level is fair game for DNA analysis and the Raff DNA was well within the pure sample range, and was not a 'trace', i.e., a broken fragment. It showed up 17 alleles of Raff. A 'trace' would yield just six or seven at most.


He also said quality of the DNA was sovereign over its quantity.


As for the knife, as Professor Novelli pointed out, there is no way the Mez DNA could have been picked up at the cop shop in Rome. In addition, the knife was in a new unused envelope, before it was put in the stationery box.

If it identified the murder weapon (which it did by virtue of a near full profile of Mez found on the blade [15 alleles] when she had never been at Raff's apartment; and Raff tried to preclude this by saying he'd 'pricked' her hand with his knife, whilst cooking) then it doesn't matter whether the knife was the first or the last of thousands.

 

[Vixen]

Hellmann didn't find their alibi false or Quintavalle reliable. What do you think about that?

You know what I think. The same as the Supreme Court who sacked him.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, come off it. The super-tallness of City of London police is legendary. OK so I said Met by accident. I knew I had in mind central London police (who seem to look younger every day). Big Deal. It doesn't detract from the folk myth that 'policemen have big feet' and the chief at Holborn Station loved to boast that not one of his cops was under 6' tall.

The fact height requirements have since been abolished, doesn't cancel out the legend.

It's a pity you never learned to distinguish between an urban myth by jest from a point being put forward seriously.

ETA The fact that I know this and you and LondonJohn do not, illustrates how much more knowledgeable I am than you are, and you both have demonstrated neither of you are even aware of your own ignorance.

Yet you feel confident to make all kinds of assertions and to criticise those who are wiser than you, in your state of blissful ignorance.

Yeah. I concede. You are simply much more knowledgeable and much more intelligent than I or Planigale. Certainly this latest event amply illustrates the gulf between us. Well done you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yeah. I concede. You are simply much more knowledgeable and much more intelligent than I or Planigale. Certainly this latest event amply illustrates the gulf between us. Well done you.

Vixen is one of those who can find the hilarity in even the most tragic of murders.

Vixen was asked to name one - one! - peer reviewed forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni's contribution to this case.

In answer to that she cites not Professor Novelli, but what Judge Nencini had written about Professor Novelli. Please remember that Nencini had already been trashed by the eventual ISC panel which annulled his conviction (without remand) and called Nencini's judicial method of handling DNA evidence wanting.

Wanting: mainly because Judge Nencini misunderstood key judicial renderings of how judges should handle expert evidence. Two misunderstandings which Marasca-Bruno savage Nencini over are:

- elevating himself over experts as a supra-expert acc. to a now antiquated legal method where an Italian judge knows better than the experts.

- not understanding the relationship between "compatibility" and "identity" in DNA profiling, believing that "compatibility" is enough.​

But back to the question asked politely of Vixen a gazillion times: name one - one! - peer reviewed forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni's work. For that, Vixen offers one - one! - sentence from Nencini, which even though Nencini's judicial-renderings of this are incompetent - as a now "judicial truth" established by the ISC - even in considering all this, all Nencini can manage is:

- Novelli **confirms** the need for multiple amplifications, which Stefanoni did not do.

- Novelli muses that he suspects, though, that this shortcoming can be overcome by the experience of the operator, without expressing an opinion as to whether or not Stefanoni was that operator!!​

That is the best Vixen can do. At least she acknowledged the need that the question was a good one, and had a right to be answered, even as she supplied the weakest answer possible.....

...... meaning that even Vixen now agrees that no peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert has ever agreed with Stefanoni and her lab's handling of crucial evidence in a horrid murder case.

As for Novelli -- one is left with the view that he would not outright lie for the prosecution. He confirmed the need for multiple amplifications, while musing that perhaps an experienced operator might overcome that necessary step of protocol......

..... leaving some room for doubt, so that an unscrupulous prosecutor, an idiot judge, and an agenda-laden internet poster many years later might claim he meant otherwise.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen is one of those who can find the hilarity in even the most tragic of murders.

Vixen was asked to name one - one! - peer reviewed forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni's contribution to this case.

In answer to that she cites not Professor Novelli, but what Judge Nencini had written about Professor Novelli. Please remember that Nencini had already been trashed by the eventual ISC panel which annulled his conviction (without remand) and called Nencini's judicial method of handling DNA evidence wanting.

Wanting: mainly because Judge Nencini misunderstood key judicial renderings of how judges should handle expert evidence. Two misunderstandings which Marasca-Bruno savage Nencini over are:

- elevating himself over experts as a supra-expert acc. to a now antiquated legal method where an Italian judge knows better than the experts.

- not understanding the relationship between "compatibility" and "identity" in DNA profiling, believing that "compatibility" is enough.​

But back to the question asked politely of Vixen a gazillion times: name one - one! - peer reviewed forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni's work. For that, Vixen offers one - one! - sentence from Nencini, which even though Nencini's judicial-renderings of this are incompetent - as a now "judicial truth" established by the ISC - even in considering all this, all Nencini can manage is:

- Novelli **confirms** the need for multiple amplifications, which Stefanoni did not do.

- Novelli muses that he suspects, though, that this shortcoming can be overcome by the experience of the operator, without expressing an opinion as to whether or not Stefanoni was that operator!!​

That is the best Vixen can do. At least she acknowledged the need that the question was a good one, and had a right to be answered, even as she supplied the weakest answer possible.....

...... meaning that even Vixen now agrees that no peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert has ever agreed with Stefanoni and her lab's handling of crucial evidence in a horrid murder case.

As for Novelli -- one is left with the view that he would not outright lie for the prosecution. He confirmed the need for multiple amplifications, while musing that perhaps an experienced operator might overcome that necessary step of protocol......

..... leaving some room for doubt, so that an unscrupulous prosecutor, an idiot judge, and an agenda-laden internet poster many years later might claim he meant otherwise.

It's very simple. In a criminal trial, the party claiming 'contamination' has the burden of proof of showing it is a certain, or near certain probability, that that is what happened.

Marasca Bruno misinforms when it claims the Rome laboratories did not follow international protocols. It is merely cutting and pasting Bongiorno (who received an inordinately long and unbalanced hearing before it) whose ridiculous claim that the suspect knife sent for testing, which was picked up from Raff's pad where Mez had never been by a completely different forensic team than the one who scoured the cottage, some six weeks later, introduced a significant chance of contamination.


The labs did follow international protocol and was in the process of attaining ISO accreditation. They were members of ENFI (_sp?) and followed ANSA; the personnel are selected from a pool of highly academically and vocationally qualified graduate intake every year. It is grossly insulting and improper to even suggest Stefanoni would consider faking a result in order to bring about a 'wrongful conviction' to some random person/s. If the treatment of Rudy's samples were perfectly sound, then they were for all samples.

As for your claim Novelli was some how defective in his testimony, from wiki:

Born in the little city of Rossano in the south of Italy, he graduated magna cum laude in genetics in the 1981. In 1985 earned a Ph.D at Sapienza University of Rome.[1] In 1995 he became Professor of genetics at University of Rome Tor Vergata.

From 2003 he is also "adjunct professor" at Arkansas University.

From 2008 to 2011 he was president of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery at Tor Vergata. In 2013 he had been elected rector of his university.[2]

Why would he write a research paper into Stefanoni? That would not be a proper topic. Stefanoni would have had extensive training and education into the scientific method. No scientist worth their salt would even consider 'fiddling' their results. The idea is preposterous, especially as the forensic experts for all the parties had a mandatory requirement to be there. The fact several of them deliberately failed to attend, to witness Stefanoni's neutral testing, reflects on them, in their transparent tactic of staying away so that they could make all sorts of false claims in court about the results later. The issue of the EDF documents is one such big red herring.

Fact is, the scientific, genetic and other forensic results show irrevocable evidence that Amanda and Raff did commit the murder and rape of Mez, together with Rudy.

The fact that Marasca has a problem understanding that DNA evidence is no different from fingerprint evidence - they are both based on identifying compatible sets of data with those found at the scene to possible suspects. Imagine if the sample on the bra clasp had been Raff's fingerprint, rather than DNA, would there be ludicrous claims, 'Oh it must have been transferred from the doorknob by a latex glove of a forensic cop'? No, of course not, a DNA sample is millions of times more personal to an individual than eighteen key points on a fingerprint, yet Marasca court pretends it struggles understanding how it identifies Raff, rather than being some vague possibility it is his.

Likewise, Mez' DNA on the knife. There is no innocent explanation of how it got there. It almost certainly must have pierced her bodily tissue for it to have remained (cf Amanda's short story in prison about a murdered rape victim being 'pierced'). All parties agree it is Mez' DNA, so Marasca's claim the knife being transferred still in the same clean unused envelope it was placed in into an empty stationery box, which had held a Christmas calendar, at the police station in Rome, renders the entire murder trial null and void is pure corruption on its part.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen - truly, you cannot follow an argument.

I never said Novelli was defective in his testimony. Please remember, the question was to you - name ONE peer-reviewed DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni.

To that you give a quote from **Nencini** about Novelli and far from addressing the issue, Nencini quotes Novelli as agreeing that multiple amplification are part of the protocol, something Stefanoni did not do!!!!!!!!

Because Nencini then spun this as a support **for** Stefanoni, the Marasca/Bruno court annulled Nencini's verdicts partly for misapplying science in the judicial realm.

No one is claiming Novelli was defective. The issue is how dishonest prosecutors, idiot judges, and agenda-laden Internet posters misuse Novelli.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Prof Novelli, one of Italy's leading geneticists, was at the trial, took part in preparing a report from primary sources. He was cross-examined by all parties, including the judge.

Vixen, you are aware Novelli was a paid expert for the prosecution, correct? How, exactly, did Novelli get his info "from primary sources" but Conti, Vecchiotti, Gill, etc. did not?

Does Novelli have a published, peer-reviewed paper discussing the evidence in this case? In this paper, did he examine the way the evidence was collected and analyzed? Did he refute Peter Gill's analysis? Peter Gill is the man who invented LCN DNA analysis. This is the analysis performed on the knife. Gill has published papers explaining why it was performed incorrectly and thus had incorrect results. Did Novelli address this in his peer reviewed paper? Could you link the article? We have not seen it.

Or, would it be more accurate to say he did not publish any peer-reviewed paper on the matter, and his only contribution was to act as a paid consultant for the prosecution?

Peter Gill got his info second hand from Friends of Amanda Knox enthusiasts who asked him, is there any scenario where DNA can be transferred from A to B, so he sat down and said in theory ceteris parabus it's remotely possible, and wrote a paper based on the whingings of the defence, and was no doubt paid handsomely for it.

This scenario is entirely concocted in your (more than a little) crazy head. Gill got his information from the same place as Novelli -- Stefanoni's records. There was no sit down conversation with an internet group called "Friends of Amanda Knox". You are quite honestly the craziest person ever.

Gill is arguably the leading forensic geneticist in the world. He is interested in the correct application of forensic science. He is interested in correct application of the technique he invented -- LCN analysis. LCN analysis was performed on the knife blade. It was performed incorrectly, as explained by Peter Gill, the man who invented the technique. Thus, since this incorrect analysis was the only physical evidence linking Amanda to anything at all, there is now ZERO evidence linking Amanda to the murder. QED.

Dr Gill was not invited to give evidence at the trial, did not have access to primary information, did not visit the forensic laboratories in Rome, did not subject himself to cross-examination and published his sycophantic article in praise of the kids in his own journal, reviewed by his own editorial board and by a defense lawyer (as he notes in his acknowledgements).

Peer reviews are usually anonymous. Do you have a citation for any evidence that his reviewers were his own editorial board? FYI: either way, the editorial board on FSI is comprised of leading experts in forensic science. As I'm sure you know, since it is the most highly cited forensic genetics journal in the world.

But still, I'd like to see that citation. Since, you know, you make up 99.9% of your "facts".

A court can only look at evidence put before it. Gill is just an 'opinion piece' and not a properly scientifically supervised research undertaking.

Are you saying the prosecution paying for Novelli to testify is not an "opinion", yet a peer-reviewed scientific publication in Forensic Science International IS an "opinion piece"? Loool, only you could believe something like that Vixen. I would be surprised at this statement if we hadn't already confirmed you are super nuts.

ETA In addition, as Nencini says, in a criminal trial, it is futile to talk of academic hypotheses of generalised possibilities of contamination. In a trial it has to be established as a real possibility, one way or the other, and the defence did not establish this, to anywhere near a high enough standard of proof to the kids'-championing Massei court, who was all for mitigating for the kids wherever it could, but had no choice but to convict given the overwhelming evidence against them, even without the definitive DNA results.

Yeah, well Nencini is completely incompetent in every way and has absolutely no understanding of forensic science.

Contamination is *always* a real possibility. The only way to minimize this possibility is to perform rigorous protocols for evidence collection and analysis. As Gill has pointed out in the peer-reviewed literature, the investigators failed in every way on this front. Thus they maximized the risk of contamination so it is, by definition, a "real possibility".

Therefore, we know they are innocent because there is absolutely no "real evidence" against them, and we have evidence they were at Raffaele's apartment when Meredith was killed by Rudy Guede. Rudy Guede, the guy who left evidence of himself everywhere in the murder room, did it by himself. That is why there is zero (correctly collected and analyzed) evidence of Amanda's and Raffaele's involvement. There is zero evidence because they were not there. QED.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen - truly, you cannot follow an argument.

I never said Novelli was defective in his testimony. Please remember, the question was to you - name ONE peer-reviewed DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni.

To that you give a quote from **Nencini** about Novelli and far from addressing the issue, Nencini quotes Novelli as agreeing that multiple amplification are part of the protocol, something Stefanoni did not do!!!!!!!!

Because Nencini then spun this as a support **for** Stefanoni, the Marasca/Bruno court annulled Nencini's verdicts partly for misapplying science in the judicial realm.

No one is claiming Novelli was defective. The issue is how dishonest prosecutors, idiot judges, and agenda-laden Internet posters misuse Novelli.

Let me get this straight. Your argument is: 'Novelli has never written a peer-reviewed paper into Stefanoni's methods'. Would that be a fair summary?

In a perfect world, of course the empirical method requires an experiment should replicable with the same results, if repeated by anyone else.

In a criminal scene, it is not a laboratory experiment scene. The forensic scientists have to work with what they have got.

Rather like forensic accountancy. When analysing 'dodgy directors' who set up companies in order to defraud and commit crime, we often had to piece together 'incomplete records', based on our accountancy skills.

Stefanoni found a small amount of DNA on the blade which was low copy number. That doesn't mean she is not allowed to try identify it and that the perps are 'off the hook', as it were.

Why not turn your fury onto the defense experts who refused to attend the DNA testing, in the cynical and reprehensible attitude they would do nothing to support the prosecution, on the contrary, they would seek to sabotage it and throw mud at the scientific staff. Sadly, innocence fraud is now an inherent fabric of criminal law.

ETA Stefanoni DID amplify the LCN DNA mutliple times.