Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[NotEvenWrong]

Prof. Torre (R.I.P.) was the expert for Amanda Knox's defense and not present for that testing.


IIRC Pasquali was the ballistics expert who recreated the rock throwing, why do you think he was there for the DNA testing. Patumi was present as a consultant for Knox when C&V tried to make sense of Stefanoni's results in 2011.

LMAO. Vixen's 99% accurate memory. Never let the facts get in the way of what you write Vixen. If you misremember something, I'm pretty sure it's just the Friends of Amanda paying off the internet again to make you look like a fool.

 

[Vixen]

Source, please?
Wait a sec, are you still talking about 36b? Are you claiming now that 36b was a "mixed" trace? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?


"She extracted the nucleus from the cell", is that what you want to say? Last time I had a biology class it was state of the science that the nucleus was contained in the cell not the other way around, has that changed?

The DNA cell from the nucleus of the white blood cell, or whatever nucleated cell it was extracted from

Prof. Torre (R.I.P.) was the expert for Amanda Knox's defense and not present for that testing.


IIRC Pasquali was the ballistics expert who recreated the rock throwing, why do you think he was there for the DNA testing. Patumi was present as a consultant for Knox when C&V tried to make sense of Stefanoni's results in 2011. There is this prison intercept, you know, the one with the "I was there" in it, in which Mr Knox tells his daughter that despite being obliged to notify them everytime something is tested the Knox defense wasn't notified of that testing, so your "they failed to show up" goes down in flames.
The one who was there for the testing of 36b was Prof. Potenza for Sollecito, who made his opinion about 36b very clear in two briefs sent to Sollecito's defense:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...nt-Defense-Potenza-preliminary-DNA-traces.pdf

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...ort-Consultant-Defense-Potenza-DNA-traces.pdf



Nice try to explain how the amplification works, adding the drama of "all the experts watching." Tell me please what do you think any of the not present defense experts could have objected to? That she shook the test tube the wrong way?


Nice drama, have you considered writing fiction?

The source is Darkness Descending, not me.

 

[Vixen]

Oh wow! Well if Stefanoni amplified the sample "hundreds of times", no wonder they found contamination. Every cycle you run in PCR, you ~double the total amount of amplicon. So if there is even a single molecule of contaminated DNA, it will show up in the results. Heck, if there is any mispriming (and no DNA from the source), you could start to see faulty signals if you amplified it hundreds of times. This is why there is a cutoff for number of cycles. Typically it's around 30. Stefanoni really screwed up if she did it "hundreds" of times!



Hahahaha. Please do tell us Vixen: how does one "scour the lab for signs of contamination". Magic DNA goggles and a black light? Cite where and how they "scoured the lab for contamination".

And since when were there witnesses for Stefanoni's LCN DNA work? I have never ever heard this before, and I am pretty sure if there were you would have mentioned it 1000x by now to verify Stefanoni somehow wasn't an incompetent fool. Cite this please. Or is this one of your 99.99999% of "facts" that you fabricate out of thin air?



You don't "grow the cell in solution" when performing PCR. Jesus H. Christ. This isn't how you do PCR. I'm starting to wonder if you just make crap up in your head and fake credentials to sound smart. Has anyone mentioned this to you before?



Who the hell cares if they were watching Stef shake a tube lol?



I have no idea what this means. (Neither does anyone else, FYI)



Well, more like a billion. 10^30+ if Stefanoni actually was a complete idiot and cycled it "hundreds of times". Not like you are smart enough to do the math correctly though. I am starting to wonder if you just say stuff to try to sound smart, Vixen. You wouldn't even have enough reagents to cycle it "hundreds of times". I am getting the suspicion you're making stuff up again. Did you learn molecular biology after you defeated your GM national champion uncle at chess?



Yeah, and bread crumbs when the independent court appointed experts looked at the blade lol. And again, cite where all these DNA experts were looking over Stefanoni's shoulder when she did the LCN analysis.

Also, "superimposing" on the electropherogram of Amanda/Raff/Patrick is faulty analysis 101. You are not analyzing the graphs independently, and you are biasing the results. This is called a suspect-centric analysis. The correct way is to look at the graph before you see the suspect's profile, and make allele calls independently. Then do the same for the suspects. Then see which alleles match. Fail, Vixen.



Well... hate to break it do you. But when someone who knows anything about genetics sees the crap you write it is obvious you don't know what you're talking about.



She deliberately lied about the TMB results and how she quantified the DNA, as she did not do qPCR. If she amplified the PCR reaction hundreds of times she overshot her endpoint at LEAST 3 fold. There is no way to not have "enough material" to repeat the test. You just add more water. Voila, you now have a larger reaction volume to repeat the test. If she could not figure this out herself she is a complete idiot.

i.e. she did not follow protocol at all, exactly like Peter Gill, the inventor of LCN technology, has stated in peer-reviewed published work. Imagine that, the founding father of DNA technology is right. Vixen is wrong.

If you're going to make up crap about the DNA evidence I suggest you like, read a book or two about molecular biology first.

Take it up with the authors of Darkness Descending.

Perhaps the prosecution should have got YOU to write the report, Dr Brainiac Not Even Wrong, spawn of the father Peter Gill.

 

[Methos]

LMAO. Vixen's 99% accurate memory. Never let the facts get in the way of what you write Vixen. If you misremember something, I'm pretty sure it's just the Friends of Amanda paying off the internet again to make you look like a fool.

We are witnessing the rare occasion of the 1%

 

[Methos]

The DNA cell from the nucleus of the white blood cell, or whatever nucleated cell it was extracted from

Ok, I have to admit that I'm not a biologist, so please explain what a "DNA cell" is...

The source is Darkness Descending, not me.

LOL. "Darkness Descending" is your source? Sorry Vixen, but the only sources I'm taking seriously are the court documents, you know about this page, don't you?
I've read that book, and I can't remember reading the drama you bring up, how about a page number or a quote (I have the digital version handy to verify)

 

[Vixen]

Ok, I have to admit that I'm not a biologist, so please explain what a "DNA cell" is...


LOL. "Darkness Descending" is your source? Sorry Vixen, but the only sources I'm taking seriously are the court documents, you know about this page, don't you?
I've read that book, and I can't remember reading the drama you bring up, how about a page number or a quote (I have the digital version handy to verify)

Page 230 to 233.

If you speak Italian, do check out Stefanoni's powerpoint presentation on www.TheMurderofMeredithKercher.com webpages.

DNA is only found in nucleated cells. This includes white blood cells, saliva, semen and sebaceuous gland oily sweat. From this nucleated cell the DNA can be extracted. (The DNA is not actually a cell, itself.)

 

[Vixen]

We are witnessing the rare occasion of the 1%

Nope. Not from memory. A summary of a direct quote.

 

[Methos]

Page 230 to 233.
If you speak Italian, do check out Stefanoni's powerpoint presentation on www.TheMurderofMeredithKercher.com webpages.

DNA is only found in nucleated cells. This includes white blood cells, saliva, semen and sebaceuous gland oily sweat. From this nucleated cell the DNA cell can be extracted.

Give me a quote to start with, please, the kindle edition doesn't have the page numbers
I know that powerpoint very well, or better the on that was repaced by the current edition

ETA: Do you really think that "Darkness Descending" is a "Source"?

 

[Vixen]

Give me a quote to start with, please, the kindle edition doesn't have the page numbers
I know that powerpoint very well, or better the on that was repaced by the current edition

ETA: Do you really think that "Darkness Descending" is a "Source"?

It's chapter 21 DNA Shock and it begins, 'Monday, 12 November Before DNA boffin Patrizia Stefanoni.

All books are a source; whether it's a good source, depends on what you are looking up. DD is OK for Stefanoni and Garofano quotes.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

Nencini was overturned. As said already , Hellmann did not find Quintavalle credible. No rational person does.

Quintavalle also failed to tell Det. Volturno that Amanda was at his shop when presented with a freaking PICTURE of her within days of the murder. His cashier said she did not see Amanda that morning in the small store. Quintavalle only came forward more than a year later. He lied. LIED.

You failed to answer my question:

How does wiping a hallway with a mop leave INTACT FOOTPRINTS and SHOEPRINTS?

 

[Stacyhs]

Holborn is in my borough, and I worked in the City of London, for years, so I know they are different areas, but that was interesting.

The Royal Military Police? I cheated: I looked on google, and that reminded me my father was in the RAF during the war, and post-war, acted as a provost marshall at HM Queen's wedding to Philip.

And yet you ridiculed using Google. I guess it's OK when you use it?

 

[Bill Williams]

Nencini was overturned. As said already , Hellmann did not find Quintavalle credible. No rational person does.

Quintavalle also failed to tell Det. Volturno that Amanda was at his shop when presented with a freaking PICTURE of her within days of the murder. His cashier said she did not see Amanda that morning in the small store. Quintavalle only came forward more than a year later. He lied. LIED.

You failed to answer my question:

How does wiping a hallway with a mop leave INTACT FOOTPRINTS and SHOEPRINTS?

It does no good to ask Vixen questions. I asked Vixen to name one - one! - peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who would vouch for Stefanoni's DNA work in this case.

She named Professor Giuseppe Novelli, who gave a report to the Hellmann trial on behalf of the prosecution, who commented upon the Conti-Vecchiotti report.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2011-09-03-Report-Novelli-comments-on-Conti-Vecchiotti-report-clean-color-copy.pdf

By the time Judge Nencini wrote about Novelli - the following were the points Vixen cited from Nencini about why Novelli's report supported Stefanoni's work:

- multiple amplifications of DNA tests needed to be done to adhere to protocol, even though Stefanoni had not done that

- sometimes in the hands of an experienced operator, multiple amplifications might not be necessary​

Nowhere did Novelli (or Nencini in citing him) say that Stefanoni met that latter condition (muse).

So we're left with Vixen STILL - not citing one peer-reviewed DNA expert who sides with Stefanoni.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Hellmann court also received (Sept 20, 2011) an anonymous letter from an employee at Stefanoni's lab, slamming the way it was run:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/anonymous-letter-to-the-court-of-perugia/

The following are the salient points that this anonymous person covered:

- there are no mandatory procedures in the lab, "so as to verify the reliability of the data provided by a laboratory with respect to another. On any kind of analysis, not just for DNA."

- Stefanoni claimed to possess 252 certificates of audit of her lab showing how much it complied with standards. However, those certificates contained recommendations for "prescriptive requirements" and "corrects" before the certificate could be said to be valid.

- Stefanoni's lab always was blind to the chain of possession of samples which arrived, so as to not be able to comment of pre-reception contamination.

- They rarely cataloged or kept the containers in which samples arrived so as to go back and check the presence of contamination in the containers

- Contrary to Stefanoni's claim that this was the first time her work had ever been criticized, the anonymous source says that problems have always been there and that Stefanoni just says want she wants.

- The Scientific police only use protective collection gear for the TV cameras, and wear masks and hoods only when the lawyers are monitoring their collection.

- there is bad disorganization in the storage, refrigeration and handling by the police of exhibits.

- the cleaning of tools and surfaces is done with alcohol, and never checked with a blank control.

- "When the biological result is not as hoped, the amplification of the trace (??[what trace??]) is pushed beyond any reasonable scientific recommendation and will go on until something (??[what??]) is found. May this be the reason why the result is always the presence of mixed unknown subjects?"

- the recycler is always placed under an extractor fan, therefore increasing the probability of contamination.

- Highly specialized instrumentation sometimes does not have a service contract, and when it fails is simply left.

- biological samples are routinely destroyed, so that repeatability is impossible (Note: even Machiavelli confirmed this months ago!)

- Cold cases are routinely "solved" by assigning DNA matches to dead people, or by assigning fingerprint matching to them.​

"The icing on the cake … What does the police do? They give awards to the investigators and scientists (who have “solved” in their own way the Kercher case) with accolades and praises! Just Bravi!!"

 

[whoanellie]

Please tell me you are joking!

That was my first reaction also. You just can't tell with Vixen. It does appear from subsequent posts Vixen was serious. Oh the horror.
Why people debate with someone who is so profoundly ignorant and so deeply unaware of their own ignorance is beyond me.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Welshman]

Nencini was overturned. As said already , Hellmann did not find Quintavalle credible. No rational person does.

Quintavalle also failed to tell Det. Volturno that Amanda was at his shop when presented with a freaking PICTURE of her within days of the murder. His cashier said she did not see Amanda that morning in the small store. Quintavalle only came forward more than a year later. He lied. LIED.

You failed to answer my question:

How does wiping a hallway with a mop leave INTACT FOOTPRINTS and SHOEPRINTS?

Vixen attacks Amanda and Raffaele for lying and defends a witness who blatantly lied.

 

[Vixen]

Nencini was overturned. As said already , Hellmann did not find Quintavalle credible. No rational person does.

Quintavalle also failed to tell Det. Volturno that Amanda was at his shop when presented with a freaking PICTURE of her within days of the murder. His cashier said she did not see Amanda that morning in the small store. Quintavalle only came forward more than a year later. He lied. LIED.

You failed to answer my question:

How does wiping a hallway with a mop leave INTACT FOOTPRINTS and SHOEPRINTS?

They cleaned up AND THEN TROD OVER IT.

 

[Vixen]

And yet you ridiculed using Google. I guess it's OK when you use it?

As you can see, I stated my source. Any objections?

As it happens, google was not a good source, as the answer turned out to be the Honourable Artillery Company.

 

[Vixen]

The Hellmann court also received (Sept 20, 2011) an anonymous letter from an employee at Stefanoni's lab, slamming the way it was run:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/anonymous-letter-to-the-court-of-perugia/

The following are the salient points that this anonymous person covered:

- there are no mandatory procedures in the lab, "so as to verify the reliability of the data provided by a laboratory with respect to another. On any kind of analysis, not just for DNA."

- Stefanoni claimed to possess 252 certificates of audit of her lab showing how much it complied with standards. However, those certificates contained recommendations for "prescriptive requirements" and "corrects" before the certificate could be said to be valid.

- Stefanoni's lab always was blind to the chain of possession of samples which arrived, so as to not be able to comment of pre-reception contamination.

- They rarely cataloged or kept the containers in which samples arrived so as to go back and check the presence of contamination in the containers

- Contrary to Stefanoni's claim that this was the first time her work had ever been criticized, the anonymous source says that problems have always been there and that Stefanoni just says want she wants.

- The Scientific police only use protective collection gear for the TV cameras, and wear masks and hoods only when the lawyers are monitoring their collection.

- there is bad disorganization in the storage, refrigeration and handling by the police of exhibits.

- the cleaning of tools and surfaces is done with alcohol, and never checked with a blank control.

- "When the biological result is not as hoped, the amplification of the trace (??[what trace??]) is pushed beyond any reasonable scientific recommendation and will go on until something (??[what??]) is found. May this be the reason why the result is always the presence of mixed unknown subjects?"

- the recycler is always placed under an extractor fan, therefore increasing the probability of contamination.

- Highly specialized instrumentation sometimes does not have a service contract, and when it fails is simply left.

- biological samples are routinely destroyed, so that repeatability is impossible (Note: even Machiavelli confirmed this months ago!)

- Cold cases are routinely "solved" by assigning DNA matches to dead people, or by assigning fingerprint matching to them.​

"The icing on the cake … What does the police do? They give awards to the investigators and scientists (who have “solved” in their own way the Kercher case) with accolades and praises! Just Bravi!!"

ROFL Was this the fake letter written by Raff himself?


You are so gullible.

 

[Methos]

Give me a quote to start with, please, the kindle edition doesn't have the page numbers
I know that powerpoint very well, or better the on that was repaced by the current edition

ETA: Do you really think that "Darkness Descending" is a "Source"?

It's chapter 21 DNA Shock and it begins, 'Monday, 12 November Before DNA boffin Patrizia Stefanoni.

All books are a source; whether it's a good source, depends on what you are looking up. DD is OK for Stefanoni and Garofano quotes.

Thank you, very nice written drama in that chapter.

The legal observers met near the police labs in Rome’s Tuscolana Road, not far from Cinecittà, the heart of Italy’s film industry, after the weekend. To keep the pressure on Stefanoni, each defence lawyer appointed a forensic scientist as their specialist consigliere. Amanda’s lawyer Luciano Ghirga had found Italy’s most famous independent expert outside the police, the flamboyant Carlo Torre. The TV-friendly face of Torre, his craggy authority softened by round glasses and long curly hair, was famous in Italy. To bolster the team further, Torre had hired his personal DNA specialist Sara Gino.
The Sollecitos’ lawyer, Luca Maori, the chubby bon viveur of Perugia’s law courts, had roped in equally eminent university professors Vincenzo Pascali and Valter Patumi; he would later hire a DNA expert, Adriano Tagliabracci. A young curly-haired lawyer in smart clothes stood alongside another middle-aged woman with short hair. He was Francesco Maresca, the Florentine lawyer the Kercher family had elected to represent them in the whole legal process.
His expert was Francesca Torricelli of Florence’s genetics institute. Although all the scientists had been invited, only Patumi and Torricelli were present.

The problem is, that it is completely fictional and even self-contradictory.
Long story short, it is quite clear from this document that the people who were there were:
- Lawyers Maori and Benigni for Sollecito + expert Prof. Potenza
- Lawyer Costa for Knox
- Lawyer Pacelli and expert Pascali for Lumumba

No sign of Maresca or Torricelli. It should be noted that only Prof. Potenza stayed until the end of that day...

This is exactly why I have problems with quotes from the books. The scenario above is made up, so why should I think that the authors didn't make up the dialogue as well?

It's interesting that you dismiss Dr. Gill because he didn't testify in court, but love to quote Garofano who also didn't testify in court.

 

[Annella]

ROFL Was this the fake letter written by Raff himself?


You are so gullible.

Here is an idea Vixen! Why not get in touch with ALL the others this particular letter was addressed to huh?

For your convenience I quote from the opening part of letter, addressed to following>>

TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF PERUGIA
TO THE EXPERTS OF THE COURT OF PERUGIA DR.VECCHIOTTI AND DR.CONTI
TO THE CONSULTANTS OF THE PARTIES
TO THE CORRIERE DELL’UMBRIA

Contact Steffi and the Corriere DellÚmbria...ask them about the letter. Oh, and the CONSULTANTS of the Parties ( note the plural here) I wonder if Mignini will admit to getting a copy.

Please get back to us with your results.