• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 30

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stacyhs

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
37,276
Location
United States
This is a continuation thread as the previous edition had got too long. You may quote freely from the previous threads.
Posted By: Agatha



That two million went further than I thought.

You haven't heard? G-M had a money tree in the office.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not quite. Despite your refusal to do more than finally present the Vinci report (in Italian and not searchable or translatable by Chrome or c & p) I typed the relevant parts into a translation program. Unsurprisingly, your claim was false. Vinci found some DNA that was compatible with Knox just as it would be compatible with other people.
But it is his conclusion regarding that DNA that puts the lie to your claim:





In other words, Vixen, Vinci did NOT find Knox's DNA on the bra clasp. Will you now stop claiming he did?

I wonder of The Machine will bother to include Vinci's conclusion in his hit job...er...'article'.

If it is uploaded as a scan it can't be converted to Word. You can try an OCR reader. I didn't do the upload to the site so it is no good having a go at me.

Of course Vinci played it down but that is undoubtedly what he found.

Knox and Guede.

If it had been Guede alone you would be the first to be screeching how correct the results are.
 
Where to find Harry Rag

Do you remember when you were a kid and you'd indulge in a bit of DIY biology? You'd explore wasteland and lift various abandoned debris just to see what various bugs, beasties and creepy-crawlies lay underneath. Sometimes you'd be surprised and say "WTF is that?" Well, that's the very terrain that Rag inhabits on YouTube. Some uninformed eejit makes a comment, you click the "view replies" button and there you will find the genus "Harrius Raggus" scuttling around in circles having never witnessed the cold light of day in the past ten years or more.

The genus "Harrius Raggus" is impervious to change and cannot mutate into anything resembling intelligent life. The only answer is to grab the nearest copy of the Daily Mail and mash the poor specimen to a pulp which is all the Daily Mail is good for anyway, although it does provide a rather easy crossword as its only redeeming feature.

Hoots
 
Not quite. Despite your refusal to do more than finally present the Vinci report (in Italian and not searchable or translatable by Chrome or c & p) I typed the relevant parts into a translation program. Unsurprisingly, your claim was false. Vinci found some DNA that was compatible with Knox just as it would be compatible with other people.
But it is his conclusion regarding that DNA that puts the lie to your claim:





In other words, Vixen, Vinci did NOT find Knox's DNA on the bra clasp. Will you now stop claiming her did?

I wonder of The Machine will bother to include Vinci's conclusion in his hit job...er...'article'.

Vixen contradicts herself. Vixen boasts about the strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. If this was the case why does Vixen have to lie about non existent evidence such as Amanda's DNA being on the clasp when Vixen claims she has genuine evidence to argue her case with. I remember Vixen attacking Amanda for telling blatant lies but Vixen on numerous occasions tells blatant lies in her posts which is typical of the disgusting hypocrisy we see from Vixen.
 
If it is uploaded as a scan it can't be converted to Word. You can try an OCR reader. I didn't do the upload to the site so it is no good having a go at me.

Of course Vinci played it down but that is undoubtedly what he found.

Knox and Guede.

If it had been Guede alone you would be the first to be screeching how correct the results are.

Oh, I see. So now Vinci 'played it down'. Nope. Did the prosecution challenge his finding? Nope. Did they present another expert who disputed Vinci's conclusion? Nope. Why is that, Vix?

Vinci was quite clear in what he found. And it does NOT support your claim that Vinci said he found Knox's DNA on the bra. No matter how hard you try to twist what he said, you are just plain wrong.

You said yourself " I am rarely wrong as my assertions are based on well-founded facts or sources". The report you provided clearly states that attribution of the traces Vinci found could not be unequivocably assigned to a person.

You also said "I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. I am first to put my hand up, and it's immediate. It is a mystery to me why anyone would refuse to admit an error, apart from politicians, I suppose."

Where is your hand, Vix? Where is your hand?
 
Last edited:
All of these epithets are toned down versions of what used to be called blasphemy.

Correct...but what has this to do with calling out another poster for "disrespecting St. Peter"?

Sorry, are you denying Curt Knox hired David Marriott's then PR company Marriott and Gogerty? Do you know what the commercial rates are for intensive advertising in the media?

May we have some examples of this "intensive advertising in the media" allegedly undertaken by G-M, please? Once you've established with evidence that this actually occurred, then we'll discuss the commercial rates. Unless the former is verified, the latter is a waste of time.
 
If it is uploaded as a scan it can't be converted to Word. You can try an OCR reader. I didn't do the upload to the site so it is no good having a go at me.

Of course Vinci played it down but that is undoubtedly what he found.

Knox and Guede.

If it had been Guede alone you would be the first to be screeching how correct the results are.



Now Guede's DNA was on the bra strap??

But aside fram that, once again your post demonstrating a lack of understanding of DNA science. That chart was covered in small peaks. Do you know why that was? Probably not, so I'll tell you. It was because, once more, not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni cranked up the amplification and machine sensitivity improperly. And the result was a whole bunch of phoney "peaks". And once you have all those "peaks", you can - if you so desire - match almost anyone's reference DNA profile to them. And we call that "suspect-centric identification".

As Maundy Gregory pointed out (and as you still apparently cannot understand), you can take almost any person you like and "match" them to that chart to a greater or lesser degree of reliability. As he/she noted, Casey Anthony actually "matches" to a greater degree of reliablity than Knox does. Now, that should cause a large pause for thought, shouldn't it? It's rather obvious why it should cause such a pause for thought (to most people, at least....)
 
May we have some examples of this "intensive advertising in the media" allegedly undertaken by G-M, please? Once you've established with evidence that this actually occurred, then we'll discuss the commercial rates. Unless the former is verified, the latter is a waste of time.



Not to mention the fact that Vixen created a stonking great straw man right up front. The matter in hand is whether or not the Knox family embarked upon a "$2 million PR campaign". But Vixen chose to start her "response" with:

"Sorry, are you denying Curt Knox hired David Marriott's then PR company Marriott and Gogerty?"

And then, as you point out, she (rather spectacularly) decided to invent an "intensive media advertising" piece of nonsense. Quite remarkable.
 
Oh, I see. So now Vinci 'played it down'. Nope. Did the prosecution challenge his finding? Nope. Did they present another expert who disputed Vinci's conclusion? Nope. Why is that, Vix?

Vinci was quite clear in what he found. And it does NOT support your claim that Vinci said he found Knox's DNA on the bra. No matter how hard you try to twist what he said, you are just plain wrong.

You said yourself " I am rarely wrong as my assertions are based on well-founded facts or sources". The report you provided clearly states that attribution of the traces Vinci found could not be unequivocably assigned to a person.

You also said "I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. I am first to put my hand up, and it's immediate. It is a mystery to me why anyone would refuse to admit an error, apart from politicians, I suppose."

Where is your hand, Vix? Where is your hand?

Stefanoni and Vinci both found a partial match to Amanda Knox on the bra and Vinci spends four pages discussing it.

Luckily for Knox the ten alleles (legal standard in the UK and USA) was not legal standard in Italy.

So you fibbed.
 
Correct...but what has this to do with calling out another poster for "disrespecting St. Peter"?



May we have some examples of this "intensive advertising in the media" allegedly undertaken by G-M, please? Once you've established with evidence that this actually occurred, then we'll discuss the commercial rates. Unless the former is verified, the latter is a waste of time.

The chutzpah. Stacyhs sets herself up as the judge and jury, whilst I am expected to jump through her hoops, when at the end of the day she dismisses anything contrary to her heroes. Justice, which is supposed to be cold, objective and neutral is not her strong point, at least not one likely to lead to a career in the judiciary that would last five minutes.
 
Now Guede's DNA was on the bra strap??

But aside fram that, once again your post demonstrating a lack of understanding of DNA science. That chart was covered in small peaks. Do you know why that was? Probably not, so I'll tell you. It was because, once more, not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni cranked up the amplification and machine sensitivity improperly. And the result was a whole bunch of phoney "peaks". And once you have all those "peaks", you can - if you so desire - match almost anyone's reference DNA profile to them. And we call that "suspect-centric identification".

As Maundy Gregory pointed out (and as you still apparently cannot understand), you can take almost any person you like and "match" them to that chart to a greater or lesser degree of reliability. As he/she noted, Casey Anthony actually "matches" to a greater degree of reliablity than Knox does. Now, that should cause a large pause for thought, shouldn't it? It's rather obvious why it should cause such a pause for thought (to most people, at least....)

So if the 'it slid under the door' counter-theory doesn't work, let's try the 'it would fit any Tom Dick or Harry, er, Thomasina, Dicketta or Harriet - whoops - just realised we need to insert any old female name' <fx pats each other on the back laughing uproariously at their own cleverness>
 
Stefanoni and Vinci both found a partial match to Amanda Knox on the bra and Vinci spends four pages discussing it.

Luckily for Knox the ten alleles (legal standard in the UK and USA) was not legal standard in Italy.

So you fibbed.
OMG! So Stefanoni actually adhered to accepted standards? There's a novelty. She didn't let accepted standards interfere with her treatment of the knife and bra-clasp both of which should never have made it to court due to failure to repeat the amplification of traces and obvious contamination.

Hoots
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12878629#post12878629

A useful non-technical reference on the analysis of profiles of DNA mixtures:

https://www.nist.gov/featured-stories/dna-mixtures-forensic-science-explainer

Here is a quote from the above source with an analogy on DNA mixtures:

"UNCERTAINTY #2: Whose peak is it anyway?

When analyzing a DNA mixture, the alleles from all the contributors show up on the same chart. This can make it difficult to tease apart the DNA profiles of the individual contributors. To understand why this makes things complicated, recall that after amplifying the DNA, the forensic scientist has a test tube with millions of copies of the alleles in solution. Think of that test tube as a bowl of alphabet soup.

In this bowl of soup, each letter represents a different type of allele. Our suspect is named JOHN Q SUSPECT.



We analyze the soup and find that all the letters in the suspect’s name are present. Does that mean someone named JOHN Q SUSPECT contributed to the soup?

Not necessarily. There could have been two contributors named PATRICK QUEEN and JUSTIN OHR. In that case, the soup would have all the letters needed to spell JOHN Q SUSPECT, even though no person with that name contributed to the soup."
 
So if the 'it slid under the door' counter-theory doesn't work, let's try the 'it would fit any Tom Dick or Harry, er, Thomasina, Dicketta or Harriet - whoops - just realised we need to insert any old female name' <fx pats each other on the back laughing uproariously at their own cleverness>



Yeah.....uhh.... you just don't understand the science here.

<fx laughs again at how Vixen doesn't understand what "fx" actually means (and doesn't mean) and thus where the annotation should (and should not) be used in a scipt or screenplay>
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12878629#post12878629

A useful non-technical reference on the analysis of profiles of DNA mixtures:

https://www.nist.gov/featured-stories/dna-mixtures-forensic-science-explainer

Here is a quote from the above source with an analogy on DNA mixtures:

"UNCERTAINTY #2: Whose peak is it anyway?

When analyzing a DNA mixture, the alleles from all the contributors show up on the same chart. This can make it difficult to tease apart the DNA profiles of the individual contributors. To understand why this makes things complicated, recall that after amplifying the DNA, the forensic scientist has a test tube with millions of copies of the alleles in solution. Think of that test tube as a bowl of alphabet soup.

In this bowl of soup, each letter represents a different type of allele. Our suspect is named JOHN Q SUSPECT.



We analyze the soup and find that all the letters in the suspect’s name are present. Does that mean someone named JOHN Q SUSPECT contributed to the soup?

Not necessarily. There could have been two contributors named PATRICK QUEEN and JUSTIN OHR. In that case, the soup would have all the letters needed to spell JOHN Q SUSPECT, even though no person with that name contributed to the soup."

Er, best stick to law.
 
Now Guede's DNA was on the bra strap??

But aside fram that, once again your post demonstrating a lack of understanding of DNA science. That chart was covered in small peaks. Do you know why that was? Probably not, so I'll tell you. It was because, once more, not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni cranked up the amplification and machine sensitivity improperly. And the result was a whole bunch of phoney "peaks". And once you have all those "peaks", you can - if you so desire - match almost anyone's reference DNA profile to them. And we call that "suspect-centric identification".

As Maundy Gregory pointed out (and as you still apparently cannot understand), you can take almost any person you like and "match" them to that chart to a greater or lesser degree of reliability. As he/she noted, Casey Anthony actually "matches" to a greater degree of reliablity than Knox does. Now, that should cause a large pause for thought, shouldn't it? It's rather obvious why it should cause such a pause for thought (to most people, at least....)

It was the bra clasp, not strap.
 
Stefanoni and Vinci both found a partial match to Amanda Knox on the bra and Vinci spends four pages discussing it.

Vinci's report clearly and explicitly details why it could not be assigned to Knox. So your claim that Vinci said he found Knox's DNA on the bra is false.

Luckily for Knox the ten alleles (legal standard in the UK and USA) was not legal standard in Italy.

So you fibbed.

What did I fib about, Vix? Quote it.
You claimed Vinci said Knox's DNA was on the bra.

The report clearly says that the DNA could NOT be unequivocally attributed to Knox.

Even David Balding's own software program found it was not Knox's DNA:

Using the software on a sample from a bra clasp found near Kercher’s body suggests it is very unlikely that the item carries Knox’s DNA.
https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz643m6it2n
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12878629#post12878629

A useful non-technical reference on the analysis of profiles of DNA mixtures:

https://www.nist.gov/featured-stories/dna-mixtures-forensic-science-explainer

Here is a quote from the above source with an analogy on DNA mixtures:

"UNCERTAINTY #2: Whose peak is it anyway?

When analyzing a DNA mixture, the alleles from all the contributors show up on the same chart. This can make it difficult to tease apart the DNA profiles of the individual contributors. To understand why this makes things complicated, recall that after amplifying the DNA, the forensic scientist has a test tube with millions of copies of the alleles in solution. Think of that test tube as a bowl of alphabet soup.

In this bowl of soup, each letter represents a different type of allele. Our suspect is named JOHN Q SUSPECT.



We analyze the soup and find that all the letters in the suspect’s name are present. Does that mean someone named JOHN Q SUSPECT contributed to the soup?

Not necessarily. There could have been two contributors named PATRICK QUEEN and JUSTIN OHR. In that case, the soup would have all the letters needed to spell JOHN Q SUSPECT, even though no person with that name contributed to the soup."

Here's some more information on DNA profiling using the STR - PCR method, the one used (and misused) by Stefanoni and the one generally used currently for forensic analysis. Note that STRs are also called microsatellites:

"A microsatellite is a tract of repetitive DNA in which certain DNA motifs (ranging in length from one to six or more base pairs) are repeated, typically 5–50 times. Microsatellites occur at thousands of locations within an organism's genome. They have a higher mutation rate than other areas of DNA leading to high genetic diversity. Microsatellites are often referred to as short tandem repeats (STRs) by forensic geneticists and in genetic genealogy....

Forensic and medical fingerprinting

Microsatellite analysis became popular in the field of forensics in the 1990s. It is used for the genetic fingerprinting of individuals where it permits forensic identification (typically matching a crime stain to a victim or perpetrator). It is also used to follow up bone marrow transplant patients.

The microsatellites in use today for forensic analysis are all tetra- or penta-nucleotide repeats, as these give a high degree of error-free data while being short enough to survive degradation in non-ideal conditions. Even shorter repeat sequences would tend to suffer from artifacts such as PCR stutter and preferential amplification, while longer repeat sequences would suffer more highly from environmental degradation and would amplify less well by PCR. Another forensic consideration is that the person's medical privacy must be respected, so that forensic STRs are chosen which are non-coding, do not influence gene regulation, and are not usually trinucleotide STRs which could be involved in triplet expansion diseases such as Huntington's disease. Forensic STR profiles are stored in DNA databanks such as the UK National DNA Database (NDNAD), the American CODIS or the Australian NCIDD.

Amplification
Microsatellites can be amplified for identification by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) process, using the unique sequences of flanking regions as primers. DNA is repeatedly denatured at a high temperature to separate the double strand, then cooled to allow annealing of primers and the extension of nucleotide sequences through the microsatellite. This process results in production of enough DNA to be visible on agarose or polyacrylamide gels; only small amounts of DNA are needed for amplification because in this way thermocycling creates an exponential increase in the replicated segment."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsatellite

"A Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis is a common method in molecular biology which is used to compare specific loci on DNA from two or more samples. A short tandem repeat is a microsatellite, consisting of a unit of two to thirteen nucleotides repeated several to dozens of times in a row on the DNA strand. STR analysis measures the exact number of repeating units. This method differs from restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis (RFLP) since STR analysis does not cut the DNA with restriction enzymes. Instead, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is employed to discover the lengths of the short tandem repeats based on the length of the PCR product.

STR analysis is a tool in forensic analysis that evaluates specific STR regions found on nuclear DNA. The variable (polymorphic) nature of the STR regions that are analyzed for forensic testing intensifies the discrimination between one DNA profile and another. Scientific tools such as FBI approved STRmix incorporate this research technique. Forensic science takes advantage of the population's variability in STR lengths, enabling scientists to distinguish one DNA sample from another. The system of DNA profiling used today is based on PCR and uses simple sequences or short tandem repeats (STR). This method uses highly polymorphic regions that have short repeated sequences of DNA (the most common is 4 bases repeated, but there are other lengths in use, including 3 and 5 bases). Because unrelated people almost certainly have different numbers of repeat units, STRs can be used to discriminate between unrelated individuals. These STR loci (locations on a chromosome) are targeted with sequence-specific primers and amplified using PCR. The DNA fragments that result are then separated and detected using electrophoresis. There are two common methods of separation and detection, capillary electrophoresis (CE) and gel electrophoresis.

Each STR is polymorphic, but the number of alleles is very small. Typically each STR allele will be shared by around 5 - 20% of individuals. The power of STR analysis comes from looking at multiple STR loci simultaneously. The pattern of alleles can identify an individual quite accurately. Thus STR analysis provides an excellent identification tool. The more STR regions that are tested in an individual the more discriminating the test becomes.

From country to country, different STR-based DNA-profiling systems are in use. In North America, systems that amplify the CODIS 13 core loci are almost universal, whereas in the United Kingdom the DNA-17 17 loci system (which is compatible with The National DNA Database) is in use. Whichever system is used, many of the STR regions used are the same. These DNA-profiling systems are based on multiplex reactions, whereby many STR regions will be tested at the same time.

The true power of STR analysis is in its statistical power of discrimination. Because the 13 loci that are currently used for discrimination in CODIS are independently assorted (having a certain number of repeats at one locus does not change the likelihood of having any number of repeats at any other locus), the product rule for probabilities can be applied. This means that, if someone has the DNA type of ABC, where the three loci were independent, we can say that the probability of having that DNA type is the probability of having type A times the probability of having type B times the probability of having type C. This has resulted in the ability to generate match probabilities of 1 in a quintillion (1x1018) or more. However, DNA database searches showed much more frequent than expected false DNA profile matches. Moreover, since there are about 12 million monozygotic twins on Earth, the theoretical probability is not accurate.

In practice, the risk of contaminated-matching is much greater than matching a distant relative, such as contamination of a sample from nearby objects, or from left-over cells transferred from a prior test. The risk is greater for matching the most common person in the samples: Everything collected from, or in contact with, a victim is a major source of contamination for any other samples brought into a lab. For that reason, multiple control-samples are typically tested in order to ensure that they stayed clean, when prepared during the same period as the actual test samples. Unexpected matches (or variations) in several control-samples indicates a high probability of contamination for the actual test samples."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STR_analysis
 
Last edited:
Correct...but what has this to do with calling out another poster for "disrespecting St. Peter"?



May we have some examples of this "intensive advertising in the media" allegedly undertaken by G-M, please? Once you've established with evidence that this actually occurred, then we'll discuss the commercial rates. Unless the former is verified, the latter is a waste of time.

The chutzpah. Stacyhs sets herself up as the judge and jury, whilst I am expected to jump through her hoops, when at the end of the day she dismisses anything contrary to her heroes. Justice, which is supposed to be cold, objective and neutral is not her strong point, at least not one likely to lead to a career in the judiciary that would last five minutes.

Is this ridiculous accusation supposed to divert us from noticing that you have not provided any examples of your claim? You made a claim; I asked for evidence of such by requesting examples. According to you, asking for evidence of a claim is making you 'jump through (my) hoops'. No, Vixen. Providing evidence is standard practice. Something which you seem reluctant ...or unable... to do. Why is that?

You are resorting to the tactic of "the best defense is a good offense". It's the go to response when someone is backed into a corner and they know it. Once you resort to it, you've lost the argument. Pack it up and go home.

Let me remind you of your own words, once again:

If you want to make an allegation, the onus is on you to prove it, or at least to show probable cause.
(ISF 28, #2443)
 
So if the 'it slid under the door' counter-theory doesn't work, let's try the 'it would fit any Tom Dick or Harry, er, Thomasina, Dicketta or Harriet - whoops - just realised we need to insert any old female name' <fx pats each other on the back laughing uproariously at their own cleverness>

The only person here to mention a "it slid under the door" theory is you. None of us has ever proposed such a thing. I'd ask for a quote from any of us here proposing said theory but we all know that would be futile. Why you insist on attributing such a ridiculous theory to us is intellectual dishonesty.

The rest of your post reveals that you missed LJ's point completely. Swoosh...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom