Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

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?



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 main 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.



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".



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.



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.

Prof Novelli was appointed to study the DNA results and he reported his expert witness testimony to the Massei Court. He is not answerable to Peter Gill. Gill submitted no report to the court. He could have been appointed by the defence to set out his stall to the court. However, he wasn't. He had no part in the proceedings. He could be dear Lord and Father of mankind. However, unless he comes to the trial to testify and be cross-examined his views remain legally zippo and on the same level as Jack Schitt.

We know Gill published in his own journal as he is listed in its editorial board as an editor. A former defense forensic expert Pascali is on the same board. These are the people who select what will be published. Pascali walked off the case as soon as he became aware of the sheer extent of the evidence against the kids. Gill himself thanks the defense lawyer (probably Maori) who 'kindly reviewed my work' (paraphrase).

So, what stopped Gill from turning up at the trial? Not confident, eh?

 

[Lince]

It is both amusing and very frustrating to follow this "discussion". On the one side, it is about rigorous procedures (protocols) for collecting and analysing evidence, repeatability of scientific tests/experiments, passing over the basic findings (primary materials or at least EDF files) for independent verification. Even though I am a scientist from a completely different area (Information technologies), I can follow the method/reasoning and agree with the essential requirements for validity of the obtained results.

On the other side, it is about the conclusions that cannot be independently verified (due to refusal to reveal the basic findings), a lot of questions about the procedure that produced these results, and a lot of verbal reassurances that everything was done according all the protocols. When I am reviewing a scientific paper for a scientific conference or a journal, I am not supposed to blindly believe what is presented because of verbal reassurances or the regalia of the authors, I am obliged to check the basic data and the soundness of the method applied and the conclusions arrived to.

So I do not really care here how experienced or not Steffanoni or Nencini are, or how many accreditations the Rome labs have. The fact is that the basic findings (EDFs) were not passed over for external verification, primary materials were partially destroyed, no negative controls presented (except, again, verbal reassurances of their existence), all this and much more makes me strongly doubt the results. Reviewing a scientic paper with such questionable claims, I would choose "Reject".

As probably was pointed out many times, it seems we do not have a discussion here between science and science, it is more between science and belief. And nothing can beat deeply-rooted belief.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is both amusing and very frustrating to follow this "discussion". On the one side, it is about rigorous procedures (protocols) for collecting and analysing evidence, repeatability of scientific tests/experiments, passing over the basic findings (primary materials or at least EDF files) for independent verification. Even though I am a scientist from a completely different area (Information technologies), I can follow the method/reasoning and agree with the essential requirements for validity of the obtained results.

On the other side, it is about the conclusions that cannot be independently verified (due to refusal to reveal the basic findings), a lot of questions about the procedure that produced these results, and a lot of verbal reassurances that everything was done according all the protocols. When I am reviewing a scientific paper for a scientific conference or a journal, I am not supposed to blindly believe what is presented because of verbal reassurances or the regalia of the authors, I am obliged to check the basic data and the soundness of the method applied and the conclusions arrived to.

So I do not really care here how experienced or not Steffanoni or Nencini are, or how many accreditations the Rome labs have. The fact is that the basic findings (EDFs) were not passed over for external verification, primary materials were partially destroyed, no negative controls presented (except, again, verbal reassurances of their existence), all this and much more makes me strongly doubt the results. Reviewing a scientic paper with such questionable claims, I would choose "Reject".

As probably was pointed out many times, it seems we do not have a discussion here between science and science, it is more between science and belief. And nothing can beat deeply-rooted belief.

This.

 

[Bill Williams]

Prof Novelli was appointed to study the DNA results and he reported his expert witness testimony to the Massei Court. He is not answerable to Peter Gill.

Every once in a while, someone writes something that rejects the notion of peer review. Thanks for laying your cards on the table like this.

Of course Professor Novelli is answerable to Dr. Gill. And visa versa.

But what is of interest here is what the courts said about Professor Novelli, particularly the part of what Judge Nencini in the fall of 2013 took from Novelli's testimony. This is what even YOU say in summary:

- Novelli agreed that protocol demands multiple amplifications, such of which were not done in Stefanoni's lab

- Novelli quipped at some time in his testimony that perhaps this protocol could be skipped depending on the experience of the operator.​

Out of everything that Professor Novelli testified to, those two things were the takeaway for the Nencini court.

The Supreme Court in 2015 said that it was **Nencini** who then (as a judge) did not understand the proper legal application of expert-forensic evidence, if this was **Nencini's** takeaway to justify a conviction. Marasca/Bruno said that on the law, with that evidence in front of him......

........ Nencini should have acquitted.

What is hard about understanding this?

 

[Bill Williams]

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?

Let me try one more time.

No, that is NOT my argument. I had asked you to supply one - just one - peer-reviewed forensic-expert who agreed with Stefanoni's work.

You forwarded a snippet of a conclusion drawn by Judge Nencini, into what Professor Novelli said at the Massei trial. In that snippet, Judge Nencini said it was grounds for conviction that Novelli had said:

- protocol demanded that multiple amplifications needed to happen.

- perhaps the experience of the operator could compensate for this omission.​

My argument is this, which you have trouble comprehending: The Marasca/Bruno panel said that that was a reason to acquit the pair, not convict the pair as Nencini had done. Therefore the ISC vacated Nencini's conviction, in essence exonerating Knox and Sollecito.

ETA Stefanoni DID amplify the LCN DNA mutliple times.

Once again you are presenting a misleading accounting of the evidence. Each time Stefanoni did this she got, "no result".

It was the last time, at the lowest setting of the machine that she got one, lone result. There was no amplification of that one, lone result - meaning that the whole process was meaningless. It's like picking a card from a deck twenty times in search for the Ace of Spades, and when on the 20th pick you get the Ace of Spades you say, "See, I told you I could pick the Ace of Spades from the deck."

The scandal is that Stefanoni's work resulted in not one, but two **convictions**. Once again, there is not one peer-reviewed, DNA-expert in the world who agrees that Stefanoni's work should have resulted in a conviction like Massei and Nencini said it did. Not one.

Not even Novelli.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Prof Novelli was appointed to study the DNA results and he reported his expert witness testimony to the Massei Court.

He was a consultant for the prosecution. He was not independent. The court appointed independent experts were Conti and Vecchiotti. Do you remember which side the indepedent experts sided with? Hint: It was the same side as Peter Gill (the man who invented the analysis technique used on the knife blade). Oh, and Hampikian, Bruce Budowle, etc. You know, all the world renowned independent experts who have written analyses of the forensic evidence in this case.

He is not answerable to Peter Gill.

No, he was answerable to Mignini, the guy who paid him lol.

Gill submitted no report to the court. He could have been appointed by the defence to set out his stall to the court. However, he wasn't. He had no part in the proceedings.

Oh, so he was completely independent, and thus unbiased, unlike Novelli? Thanks for pointing that out Vixxiepoo.

He could be dear Lord and Father of mankind. However, unless he comes to the trial to testify and be cross-examined his views remain legally zippo and on the same level as Jack Schitt.

Perhaps you haven't been following lately (lol), but legally, Amanda and Raffaele have been exonerated. So Novelli's and Stefanoni's analysis and opinion now are what is "legally zippo".

Gill may have not been part of the independent scientific analysts who exonerated Amanda and Raffaele, but he did not need to be because there were other independent experts involved. They all trashed Stefanoni's work. The only ones who supported her were paid prosecution experts. The point of Gill's work is to raise awareness on the misapplication of forensic science, point out sources of error, and to improve methods. Since Stefanoni's work was a perfect example of incorrect and faulty analysis leading to a wrongful conviction, it provided an obvious vehicle for a world leading forensic scientist to use as an example, and hope Italy's methods are corrected and improved in the future.

We know Gill published in his own journal as he is listed in its editorial board as an editor. A former defense forensic expert Pascali is on the same board. These are the people who select what will be published. Pascali walked off the case as soon as he became aware of the sheer extent of the evidence against the kids.

Lol. He didn't "walk off the case". He provided his consulting services, as was his job, and then was done. Since, you know, he completed his work. You're kinda super nuts still, no offense.

Gill himself thanks the defense lawyer (probably Maori) who 'kindly reviewed my work' (paraphrase).

Lol "probably". Only you Vixen.

Or, you know, he had a defense lawyer review it since peer reviewed papers are, uh, "reviewed".

So, what stopped Gill from turning up at the trial? Not confident, eh?

Probably because he wasn't one of the consultants during the trial, and there were two other Italian experts (since, you know, Italy) that acted as independent experts. What, you think the Perugian courts send out a distress beacon and all the experts come rushing out of their bat cave to save the day? Are you capable of using your brain? I mean in a rational, logical way. Not in a "make up weird fantasies" way.

 

[Planigale]

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.

Holborn is a Met station. The clue is in the colour of the cap and sleeve bands red and white for the city of london police black and white for every other Mainland GB police force (except Kew which is green).

So trivia question which part of Britain is routinely policed (by which I mean street patrols down normal streets going 'Hello, Hello, Hello, whats going on 'ere then?) by soldiers? For your bonus which unit of the British army routinely carries out these civilian policing duties?

 

[Planigale]

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.

This is the problem you opine on things you do not really understand. (Flashback to DNA protein issue) 'Trace' has a technical meaning. Trace DNA may or may not be LCN DNA. Trace refers to DNA with no identifiable origin. So DNA from blood or semen or a body part is not trace. A swab off a bra hook or knife blade with no identifiable tissue of origin is trace. Most of Guede's DNA was trace, the victim's DNA was not trace. There is discussion in the forensic journals about how trace DNA should be presented in court. In particular one must be careful not to attribute trace DNA to any particular time or activity. The issue with trace DNA is not the identity (thus I entirely accept that the DNA typed that may have been on the bra hook was that of Sollecito, and I think that the DNA from the swab of the knife blade was probably the victim's. The issue with trace DNA is the interpretation. Trace DNA is what you find with secondary etc. transfer.

So Nencini says; "The presence of mixed Kercher-Knox traces on the cotton-bud box, on the bidet, and on the washbasin leads to the conclusion that it was Amanda Knox who washed her hands and feet, both stained with the blood of Meredith Kercher and, in so doing, by rubbing [her hands and feet], losing epithelial cells that were useful for DNA extraction." Which illustrates the danger of DNA testing when it is not understood by the judiciary, The DNA was found in Knox's bathroom. There is no time stamp to its deposition, one cannot interpret from trace DNA (which is what the DNA on the bidet and washbasin was) the activity that deposited it. This interpretation of the forensic findings is stretching the science beyond any reasonable interpretation. Steffanoni was careful to say the source of the DNA could not be known. This is a good example of the judge as an expert of experts that the ISC criticised. Nencini went beyond what the expert (Steffanoni) said could be concluded from the evidence. We do not know if Knox's and Kercher's DNA was deposited in the same location on the bidet or washbasin nor whether they were deposited at the same time. Here Knox's DNA is trace, whilst Kercher's is blood.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

and I think that the DNA from the swab of the knife blade was probably the victim's.

Why do you favor this interpretation vs. contamination in the lab?

 

[Planigale]

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.

So this is science. One would expect that there would be research showing the error rate setting the cut off at 35RFU as opposed to 50RFU others use. This would have been published in a peer reviewed journal. Nencini would have referenced such a paper.

Raft's DNA (on the bra hook) was not a pure sample it was a mixed sample. But I agree it typed as Sollecito's.

Nencini / Novelli cannot just opine there is no way that the knife could have been contaminated with Kercher's DNA when repackaged. They did not carry out any investigation to determine this. Just asserting there was no contamination is not scientific.

 

[Vixen]

Holborn is a Met station. The clue is in the colour of the cap and sleeve bands red and white for the city of london police black and white for every other Mainland GB police force (except Kew which is green).

So trivia question which part of Britain is routinely policed (by which I mean street patrols down normal streets going 'Hello, Hello, Hello, whats going on 'ere then?) by soldiers? For your bonus which unit of the British army routinely carries out these civilian policing duties?

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.

 

[Methos]

For someone who claims she slept 11 hours she looks pretty wrecked.

Source for the 11 hours, please...

Amanda herself. She claimed that had a fishy salad 'about 23:00' , then the pipes under the sink spontaneously dismantled themselves 'flooding half the house' (Raff's police statement) whereupon, Raff, according to Amanda's court testimony said, oh let's roll a joint', at which point they went to bed.

Amanda claims she got up about 10:00 next morning, whilst Raff slept on, even going back to bed after breakfast until about twelve.

Well, I guess finding out that their roommate has been murdered might cause some people to "look wrecked" even after sleeping 11 hours

Is that how she sneaked out the key to Mez' room? She had the chance to take with her all her bits and pieces when she collected her fleece top, which looks nothing like a coat which would protect one from a chilly November morning in Italy.

What are you trying to say here (especially the higlighted part) ???

As the kids criminally failed to report knowing of Mez' body behind the door, we can assume they had something to do with having locked it. Having finally admitted the police, the pair were free to roam freely and at least eight people tramped through the cottage, seriously compromising the crime scene.

Sorry, but this doesn't make sense...

 

[Vixen]

Let me try one more time.

No, that is NOT my argument. I had asked you to supply one - just one - peer-reviewed forensic-expert who agreed with Stefanoni's work.

You forwarded a snippet of a conclusion drawn by Judge Nencini, into what Professor Novelli said at the Massei trial. In that snippet, Judge Nencini said it was grounds for conviction that Novelli had said:

- protocol demanded that multiple amplifications needed to happen.

- perhaps the experience of the operator could compensate for this omission.​

My argument is this, which you have trouble comprehending: The Marasca/Bruno panel said that that was a reason to acquit the pair, not convict the pair as Nencini had done. Therefore the ISC vacated Nencini's conviction, in essence exonerating Knox and Sollecito.


Once again you are presenting a misleading accounting of the evidence. Each time Stefanoni did this she got, "no result".

It was the last time, at the lowest setting of the machine that she got one, lone result. There was no amplification of that one, lone result - meaning that the whole process was meaningless. It's like picking a card from a deck twenty times in search for the Ace of Spades, and when on the 20th pick you get the Ace of Spades you say, "See, I told you I could pick the Ace of Spades from the deck."

The scandal is that Stefanoni's work resulted in not one, but two **convictions**. Once again, there is not one peer-reviewed, DNA-expert in the world who agrees that Stefanoni's work should have resulted in a conviction like Massei and Nencini said it did. Not one.

Not even Novelli.

Stefanoni claims in her own words the sample from the knife pertaining to Mez was amplified hundreds of times, each replicating the size of the original cell. Although there were many more cells of Amanda on other samples than there were of Mez in that sample (five cells), Stefanoni explains you only need one cell to carry out a DNA test.

She extracted the cell from its nucleus - carefully watched over by Torre (for Raff, a leading expert), Pascali and Patumi the other defense witnesses, together with Torricelli, for Maresca, for Mez' family. They all scoured the labs for any signs of contamination, and did not report any. She grew this cell in a solution to cause a polymerase reaction (amplification), and diluted in an enzyme solution. This was placed in a test tube and shaken with all the experts watching. One reason to have the witnesses present is precisely because it could just be a one-off event. The test tube was heated to split the helix ladder of the DNA in half. The enzyme reacts to rebuild the split half, and this happens repeatedly as the solution warms up and then cools. Thus, the whole thing ends up being amplified a hundred times over.

The results were read by a machine and in front of these eminent experts, Stefanoni unveiled the graph produced by the DNA electrogram (NB it is not possible to fake the results): four horizontal lines with four peaks, the peaks corresponding to four loci. It was then superimposed on the DNA graphs for the suspects, Amanda, Raff and Patrick, and the shock was, only Amanda's and Mez' DNA was on the knife at all.

So, you see, your claim Stefanoni did not follow correct protocol is incorrect. The fact there was no material left to repeat the test, is hardly her fault. She carried out the strictly correct scientific procedure, in front of qualified legal experts.

 

[Planigale]

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 military police, post-war, and acted as a marshall at HM Queen's wedding to Philip.

No the military police police the military. The honourable artillery company (a territorial army unit) are unique in having a special constabulary section the soldiers are warranted constables and serve with the city of London civilian police. On police duties they wear police uniforms but have a HAC badge.
https://www.hac.org.uk/home/special...ecials/why-join-the-hac-special-constabulary/

 

[bagels]

She extracted the cell from its nucleus - carefully watched over by Torre (for Raff, a leading expert), Pascali and Patumi the other defense witnesses, togehter with Torrecelli for the prosecution. They all scoured the labs for any signs of contamination, and did not report any. She grew this cell in a solution to cause a polymerase reaction (amplification), and diluted in an enzyme solution. This was placed in a test tube and shaken with all the experts watching. One reason to have the witnesses present is precisely because it could just be a one-off event. The test tub was heated to split the helix ladder of the DNA in half. The nezyme reacts to rebuild the split half, and this happens repeatedly as the solution warms up and then cools. Thus the whle thing ends up being amplified a hundred times over.

 

[Planigale]

Stefanoni claims in her own words the sample from the knife pertaining to Mez was amplified hundreds of times, each replicating the size of the original cell. Although there were many more cells of Amanda on other samples than there were of Mez in that sample (five cells), Stefanoni explains you only need one cell to carry out a DNA test.

She extracted the cell from its nucleus - carefully watched over by Torre (for Raff, a leading expert), Pascali and Patumi the other defense witnesses, together with Torricelli, for Maresca, for Mez' family. They all scoured the labs for any signs of contamination, and did not report any. She grew this cell in a solution to cause a polymerase reaction (amplification), and diluted in an enzyme solution. This was placed in a test tube and shaken with all the experts watching. One reason to have the witnesses present is precisely because it could just be a one-off event. The test tube was heated to split the helix ladder of the DNA in half. The enzyme reacts to rebuild the split half, and this happens repeatedly as the solution warms up and then cools. Thus, the whole thing ends up being amplified a hundred times over.

The results were read by a machine and in front of these eminent experts, Stefanoni unveiled the graph produced by the DNA electrogram (NB it is not possible to fake the results): four horizontal lines with four peaks, the peaks corresponding to four loci. It was then superimposed on the DNA graphs for the suspects, Amanda, Raff and Patrick, and the shock was, only Amanda's and Mez' DNA was on the knife at all.

So, you see, your claim Stefanoni did not follow correct protocol is incorrect. The fact there was no material left to repeat the test, is hardly her fault. She carried out the strictly correct scientific procedure, in front of qualified legal experts.

Please tell me you are joking!

 

[Vixen]

No the military police police the military. The honourable artillery company (a territorial army unit) are unique in having a special constabulary section the soldiers are warranted constables and serve with the city of London civilian police. On police duties they wear police uniforms but have a HAC badge.
https://www.hac.org.uk/home/special...ecials/why-join-the-hac-special-constabulary/

It's interesting how the City is run by freemasons. The top boss at one of my ex-employers was some kind of grand master of the city ( a charitable role).

The City area is covered in griffin style monuments (actually, tudor dragons), so you always know when you are within its boundaries.

I'll look out for these honourable gents and their HAC badges.

 

[Vixen]

Please tell me you are joking!

Planigale, perhaps you should have offered to put your name forward at the time, as to how you would have done it.

 

[Methos]

Stefanoni claims in her own words the sample from the knife pertaining to Mez was amplified hundreds of times, each replicating the size of the original cell. Although there were many more cells of Amanda on other samples than there were of Mez in that sample (five cells), Stefanoni explains you only need one cell to carry out a DNA test.

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 cell from its nucleus -

"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?

carefully watched over by Torre (for Raff, a leading expert),

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

Pascali and Patumi the other defense witnesses, together with Torricelli, for Maresca, for Mez' family. They all scoured the labs for any signs of contamination, and did not report any.

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

None of the samples and underwent preliminary investigation for the detection of human blood, but both have been subjected to DNA analysis that gave amplification products of extremely weak intensity and considerably below the minimum recommended by the recommendations of the GEFI (Italian Group Pathologists Forensic); furthermore, the results obtained have not been consistently reproduced in the other amplifications since for the same samples were obtained amplifications with buoyancy allelic differences for some loci.

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

36) type of kitchen knife with black handle overall length of 31 cm.
On this finding were carried out, as known, No.2 samples each (A) in correspondence of the blade and the other (B) in correspondence of the handle.
The results of the forensic analysis previously performed on blood specimen, as indicated in the notes already developed made it possible to exclude the presence on it of biological traces attributable to Sollecito, which made it possible, in my opinion since then to exclude him that he has done use in the period before its evidence collection.
I had also already expressed a technical opinion on the results obtained by the two samplings performed respectively on the handle and on the blade of the knife, for which there was no investigation was performed peliminare for highlighting the nature of the traces given the absolute skimpiness of them, emphasizing also that DNA analysis has provided for them amplification products that, because of their analytical characteristics do not provide a correct use of the results in the forensic field, as it uniquely interpretable and theoretically also due to analytical artifacts.In light of these clear, the day 14.12.07 the employees have conducted an investigation, in my presence, a total of. 4 new samples, according to the minutes, including two on the blade and two on the knife handle and are identified by letters (D - E, F - G).
On all four of these new samples the new analysis for the detection of blood-borne nature of the track by Tetra Methyl Benzidine (TMB) gave a negative result, thus confirming that the kitchen knife (rep.36) Raffaele Sollecito arrested, there is no adherent blood.Include investigations of DNA by specific polymorphisms in the human genome performed on the same analytes was consistently negative since it did not provide any amplification product, excluding in particular the presence of biological traces belonging to Raffaele Sollecito.
These additional analytical data thus agree with previous investigations carried out and exclude the presence of any biological trace belonged to Raffaele Sollecito on the kitchen knife he seized therefore also strengthening the belief that it is not used it in the period before its evidence collection.

She grew this cell in a solution to cause a polymerase reaction (amplification), and diluted in an enzyme solution. This was placed in a test tube and shaken with all the experts watching. One reason to have the witnesses present is precisely because it could just be a one-off event. The test tube was heated to split the helix ladder of the DNA in half. The enzyme reacts to rebuild the split half, and this happens repeatedly as the solution warms up and then cools. Thus, the whole thing ends up being amplified a hundred times over.

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?

The results were read by a machine and in front of these eminent experts, Stefanoni unveiled the graph produced by the DNA electrogram (NB it is not possible to fake the results): four horizontal lines with four peaks, the peaks corresponding to four loci. It was then superimposed on the DNA graphs for the suspects, Amanda, Raff and Patrick, and the shock was, only Amanda's and Mez' DNA was on the knife at all.

So, you see, your claim Stefanoni did not follow correct protocol is incorrect. The fact there was no material left to repeat the test, is hardly her fault. She carried out the strictly correct scientific procedure, in front of qualified legal experts.

Nice drama, have you considered writing fiction?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Stefanoni claims in her own words the sample from the knife pertaining to Mez was amplified hundreds of times, each replicating the size of the original cell. Although there were many more cells of Amanda on other samples than there were of Mez in that sample (five cells), Stefanoni explains you only need one cell to carry out a DNA test.

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!

She extracted the cell from its nucleus - carefully watched over by Torre (for Raff, a leading expert), Pascali and Patumi the other defense witnesses, together with Torricelli, for Maresca, for Mez' family. They all scoured the labs for any signs of contamination, and did not report any.

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?

She grew this cell in a solution to cause a polymerase reaction (amplification), and diluted in an enzyme solution.

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?

This was placed in a test tube and shaken with all the experts watching.

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

One reason to have the witnesses present is precisely because it could just be a one-off event.

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

The test tube was heated to split the helix ladder of the DNA in half. The enzyme reacts to rebuild the split half, and this happens repeatedly as the solution warms up and then cools. Thus, the whole thing ends up being amplified a hundred times over.

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?

The results were read by a machine and in front of these eminent experts, Stefanoni unveiled the graph produced by the DNA electrogram (NB it is not possible to fake the results): four horizontal lines with four peaks, the peaks corresponding to four loci. It was then superimposed on the DNA graphs for the suspects, Amanda, Raff and Patrick, and the shock was, only Amanda's and Mez' DNA was on the knife at all.

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.

So, you see, your claim Stefanoni did not follow correct protocol is incorrect.

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.

The fact there was no material left to repeat the test, is hardly her fault. She carried out the strictly correct scientific procedure, in front of qualified legal experts.

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.