ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 2nd August 2017, 06:55 PM   #201
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I can guess who drew up that diagram with the wrong information. Speaking of incorrect photoshopped creations. who can forget Knox's shoeprint being found on the paper in Filomena's room?

Can I be forgiven for getting some satisfaction (ok....a good laugh) when Vixen provides the links that actually disprove her own claims?
Considering her snarky, holier than thou attitude, to have so much wrong in one post is worthy of a good chuckle. I felt like saying OK, I've read the testimony and it proves you were wrong... now what? She's the gift that keeps giving.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 09:09 PM   #202
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,319
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Considering her snarky, holier than thou attitude, to have so much wrong in one post is worthy of a good chuckle. I felt like saying OK, I've read the testimony and it proves you were wrong... now what? She's the gift that keeps giving.
Don't expect an admission that she was wrong and Sollecito's fingerprints were not on the inside of the bedroom door. I wonder if President Peña Nieto and the Boy Scouts called her to tell her how right she was.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 11:05 PM   #203
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
How hard can it be to provide a quote? Until you do your point remains an assertion.
The quote is:

Quote:
"There is a low possibility (less than 5%) that a DNA profile will be observed 24 h after the contact that led to the transfer." (p.78)
Ergon comments:

Quote:
"From the DNA report Stefanoni did not test the exterior door handle. I think her reasons would be fairly obvious. Knowing that others had tried to open the door just prior to breaking the door down, any sample gotten from the door handle would have been necessarily mixed (and probably hopelessly mixed with several or more possible DNA profiles).

Dr. Stefanoni took samples of the interior door handle because it had traces of Meredith’s blood and because it would be a relatively “uncontaminated” surface (the interior door handle could have been used by the murderer- hence blood trace- and possibly not be mixed with other DNA, other than Meredith’s).

From the fingerprint report, it looks like the door was powdered, but tough to tell if the handle was powdered as well. If it wasn’t powdered, the same reasoning might have applied- knowledge that others had tried the door handle would have made it an unlikely site for undisturbed fingerprints.

Gill’s claim is silly. There is no way tertiary transfer happened via latex gloves, dirty or not. The likelihood of Sollecito’s DNA transferring from handle to glove, and then from glove to bra clasp at some later time, with nothing else being contaminated with Sollecito’s DNA in between, is just dumb."
and

Quote:
"Note % of alleles and peak height RFU transferred under light and heavy pressure to gloves then ask why Gill thinks Sollecito's very strong sample is a likely example of "cross transfer" is more relevant to the argument.

He also calls the sample "Trace DNA" (1.2, p.1) "Trace-DNA samples may be defined as any sample which falls below recommended threshholds at any stage of the analysis". RS strong sample does NOT fall below any recommended thresholds so the tertiary transfer argument falls flat.
All clear now?
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 11:13 PM   #204
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Since when is calling someone an astrologer an ad hominem?

For the umpteenth time, provide a cite to a forensic-DNA expert which confirms Stefanoni's work.
Dr Stefanoni is an employee of the Rome Scientific Police (forensics). She is not an academic putting out research papers for peer review.

Her objective scientific biological findings were accepted by the courts, and the panel of 'judges' making up the jury confirmed BARD the pair were guilty as charged after having seen and heard all of the evidence put before them.

Marasca-Bruno of the Supreme Court invented a reason for an annulment based on Peter Gill's lies about tertiary transfer, and assistance in helping the defence pervert justice without ever taking the witness stand and being cross-exaimed by all parties, - unlike Stefanoni - and threw out the knife and bra clasp evidence only, despite the data being perfectly scientifically sound.

There is zero doubt the trial courts came to the correct verdict, based on the evidence. Only a simpleton can fail to understand why the pair lied so many times and have no alibi.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Last edited by Vixen; 2nd August 2017 at 11:15 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 11:17 PM   #205
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Whether Gill said this or not is irrelevant as evidence has been posted that DNA transfer is detectable beyond 24 hours. Logically there is no reason for a time limit on transfer. If DNA is detectably present it is transferrable (by definition as it has to transfer from the site on to the swab to be detectable).

ETA let us consider transfer as proposed by Vixen
Transfer 1 DNA from Kercher on Knox
Transfer 2 (secondary) DNA of Kercher from Knox's hands on to basin (along with Knox's DNA a primary transfer).
Transfer 3 (tertiary) DNA of Kercher from the basin onto the swab (along with Knox's DNA a secondary transfer).

If we consider the Luminol positive prints that were DNA positive.

Transfer 1 Kercher's DNA onto floor.
Transfer 2 Kerchers DNA from floor onto Knox's feet
Transfer 3 Kercher's DNA from from Knox's feet to floor
Transfer 4 Kercher's DNA from floor (some six weeks after the murder) to swab.

Now if we are to believe Vixen a quaternary transfer of DNA six weeks later is impossible so we can only conclude that the forensic police must have made up the results.

Thank goodness sophistry is not an acceptable form of argument in a law court.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 12:43 AM   #206
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,355
[quote=Vixen;11943398]The quote is:



Ergon comments:

Quote:
"From the DNA report Stefanoni did not test the exterior door handle. I think her reasons would be fairly obvious. Knowing that others had tried to open the door just prior to breaking the door down, any sample gotten from the door handle would have been necessarily mixed (and probably hopelessly mixed with several or more possible DNA profiles).

Dr. Stefanoni took samples of the interior door handle because it had traces of Meredith’s blood and because it would be a relatively “uncontaminated” surface (the interior door handle could have been used by the murderer- hence blood trace- and possibly not be mixed with other DNA, other than Meredith’s).

From the fingerprint report, it looks like the door was powdered, but tough to tell if the handle was powdered as well. If it wasn’t powdered, the same reasoning might have applied- knowledge that others had tried the door handle would have made it an unlikely site for undisturbed fingerprints.

Gill’s claim is silly. There is no way tertiary transfer happened via latex gloves, dirty or not. The likelihood of Sollecito’s DNA transferring from handle to glove, and then from glove to bra clasp at some later time, with nothing else being contaminated with Sollecito’s DNA in between, is just dumb."
and

Quote:
"Note % of alleles and peak height RFU transferred under light and heavy pressure to gloves then ask why Gill thinks Sollecito's very strong sample is a likely example of "cross transfer" is more relevant to the argument.

He also calls the sample "Trace DNA" (1.2, p.1) "Trace-DNA samples may be defined as any sample which falls below recommended threshholds at any stage of the analysis". RS strong sample does NOT fall below any recommended thresholds so the tertiary transfer argument falls flat.
All clear now?
Unfortunately this Ergon obviously does not understand of which he/she is writing.

Trace DNA is DNA that is not associated with a source. So the DNA from blood stains or semen is not trace. DNA from the bra hook is trace because there is no knowing if the source is blood, saliva, touch etc. Trace DNA may or mayn't be LCN but they are entirely unrelated concepts.

Steffanoni herself says that the quantity of DNA attributable to Sollecito cannot be known because it is part of a mix of DNA. But this Ergon obviously knows more than Steffanoni. Steffanoni points out the dominant contributor was the victim - Kercher, but Ergon obviously knows better. Steffanoni says that the ratio of Kercher's DNA to Sollecito's DNA is about 6:1, but Ergon being an expert knows better. So according to Steffanoni who did the testing 1/7 of the total DNA was attributable to Sollecito, Steffanoni said that the total DNA of the mix was about 1ng (1000pg) so Sollecito's contribution is less than 200pg (within the definition of LCN DNA) but Ergon can just assert this is not true, because Ergon just knows the answer without having to show the working.

The thing is for any lurkers you do not have to believe me. The electropherograms are on line you can measure the peak height of Kercher's DNA and Sollecito's DNA yourself. You can see that Sollecito is a minor contributor. You can do the simple maths yourself.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 12:45 AM   #207
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Dr Stefanoni is an employee of the Rome Scientific Police (forensics). She is not an academic putting out research papers for peer review.

Her objective scientific biological findings were accepted by the courts, and the panel of 'judges' making up the jury confirmed BARD the pair were guilty as charged after having seen and heard all of the evidence put before them.

Marasca-Bruno of the Supreme Court invented a reason for an annulment based on Peter Gill's lies about tertiary transfer, and assistance in helping the defence pervert justice without ever taking the witness stand and being cross-exaimed by all parties, - unlike Stefanoni - and threw out the knife and bra clasp evidence only, despite the data being perfectly scientifically sound.

There is zero doubt the trial courts came to the correct verdict, based on the evidence. Only a simpleton can fail to understand why the pair lied so many times and have no alibi.
The numerous falsehoods told by Vixen have been pointed out by myself and others and Vixen has the cheek to attack people for lying. PGP are completely shameless in their hypocrisy.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 12:47 AM   #208
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Since Raffaele never had any reason to step foot in Meredith's room in the one or two times he visited the cottage, and since he never admitted to ever doing so, and since his fingerprints were found on the inside of her door after the murder, I have no choice but to become a 100% born again guilter. It is now me and Vixen vs the world.

My only regret is that the prosecution did not make this damning evidence the front centerpiece of their case, and instead went with blood negative DNA negative blurry stains, and tales of floating turds. He got away with it
Heheh. Before you and I go riding off together Marlon Brando-style on a Harley-Davidson into the sunset, you should bear in mind, these are fingerprint fragments and as accurately identified by Agatino Giunta, fingerprint expert, as that of Raffaele Sollecito.

As a fragment, it could be there were not enough points of matches up to the legal requirement (IIRC 18 or so matching points). Rather like DNA has to match on at least 10 alleles for an ID to be legally permissable.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Last edited by Vixen; 3rd August 2017 at 12:54 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 12:48 AM   #209
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,355
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Thank goodness sophistry is not an acceptable form of argument in a law court.
This is an ad hominem address the argument not the arguer.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 12:51 AM   #210
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
What does it say at the top of the fingerprint map?
"DIREZIONE CENTRALE ANTICRIMINE SERVIZIO POLIZIA SCIENTIFICA UACV"
so it should be clear "who/what the original source for the diagrams are".

Well, it looks like whoever made that "fingerprint map" mislabeled the prints on the inside of Meredith Kercher's bedroom door. This is from the final fingerprint report made by the Direzione centrale anticrimine della polizia di Stato (page 6):


Long story short: prints Fr.73 and Fr.83 are mislabled in the map as Fr.72

I cannot see that you are correct. According to murderofmeredithkercher.com, Fingerprint no. 72 IS on the door to Meredith Kercher's room.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg rs fingerprint on door.jpg (92.0 KB, 6 views)
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 12:53 AM   #211
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
This is an ad hominem address the argument not the arguer.
Sophistry is a well-known form of logical fallacy and is about the faulty argument technique and nothing to do with the person.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 12:58 AM   #212
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
[quote=Planigale;11943438]
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The quote is:



Ergon comments:



and



Unfortunately this Ergon obviously does not understand of which he/she is writing.

Trace DNA is DNA that is not associated with a source. So the DNA from blood stains or semen is not trace. DNA from the bra hook is trace because there is no knowing if the source is blood, saliva, touch etc. Trace DNA may or mayn't be LCN but they are entirely unrelated concepts.

Steffanoni herself says that the quantity of DNA attributable to Sollecito cannot be known because it is part of a mix of DNA. But this Ergon obviously knows more than Steffanoni. Steffanoni points out the dominant contributor was the victim - Kercher, but Ergon obviously knows better. Steffanoni says that the ratio of Kercher's DNA to Sollecito's DNA is about 6:1, but Ergon being an expert knows better. So according to Steffanoni who did the testing 1/7 of the total DNA was attributable to Sollecito, Steffanoni said that the total DNA of the mix was about 1ng (1000pg) so Sollecito's contribution is less than 200pg (within the definition of LCN DNA) but Ergon can just assert this is not true, because Ergon just knows the answer without having to show the working.

The thing is for any lurkers you do not have to believe me. The electropherograms are on line you can measure the peak height of Kercher's DNA and Sollecito's DNA yourself. You can see that Sollecito is a minor contributor. You can do the simple maths yourself.

You are wrong, as there is no requirement to know the source of the DNA.

Just because the wearer/owner of the clothing contributes a higher level of the DNA found, does not cancel out Raffaele Sollecito's strong profile - not a trace - with high RFU's and a full deck of 18 matching alleles.

Prof Novelli a leading Italian geneticist and professor, calculated the probability of it not being Raff's as > 3 billion to one against.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 01:23 AM   #213
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I cannot see that you are correct. According to murderofmeredithkercher.com, Fingerprint no. 72 IS on the door to Meredith Kercher's room.

As you very well know (and as any lurker deserves to know), the fake wiki "murderofmeredithkercher.com" is notoriously biassed against Knox/Sollecito in its interpretation of evidence. And that bias is evident in this instance. Your "source" is biassed and incorrect. The print was found on the corridor-side face of the door.

In fact, it's laughably obvious that this is that case, with reference to the scientific police's own illustration. The location of the print on that illustration is clearly shown on the corridor-side face of the door.

Do you not think, Vixen, that if Sollecito's print really had been found on the Kercher-room face of that door, this would have formed a significant - and very vocal - part of the prosecution argument in court? After all, Sollecito never claimed to have been inside Kercher's room prior to the murder, and he provably never entered Kercher's room at any point after the door was broken down and her body was discovered. So therefore, by definition, any discovery of his fingerprint on the Kercher-room face of the door would have been a very clear pointer to his presence inside Kercher's room at some point in time between the evening of her murder and the moment when the door was broken down at around 1pm on 2nd November. And, in turn, this would have been a very strong pointer to Sollecito's involvement in the murder itself or its direct aftermath.

So perhaps, Vixen, you could present that part of the prosecution argument (to the Massei, Hellmann, Nencini or Supreme courts - your choice) where they clearly reference Sollecito's fingerprint on the Kercher-room face of that door, and everything that would imply.

Many thanks in advance for your presentation of that evidence.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 01:35 AM   #214
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You are wrong, as there is no requirement to know the source of the DNA.

Just because the wearer/owner of the clothing contributes a higher level of the DNA found, does not cancel out Raffaele Sollecito's strong profile - not a trace - with high RFU's and a full deck of 18 matching alleles.

Prof Novelli a leading Italian geneticist and professor, calculated the probability of it not being Raff's as > 3 billion to one against.


Unfortunately you do not understand of which you are writing either, Vixen.

The point here - and it's a point which Planigale explained very clearly and at some length in the post to which you responded - is nothing to do with the identification of that (low template amount of) DNA as Sollecito's. Rather, the point is ENTIRELY about the provenance and transference of that DNA.

And to illustrate this point further - and more vividly still - perhaps you'd like to explain just how the DNA of at least two other male contributors came to be discovered on that tiny bra clasp hook, Vixen? That DNA belonged to specific individuals. Did those individuals touch Kercher's bra clasp hook, Vixen?



(I'll tell you the truth of the matter to help you along if you like: the truth is that this tiny metal hook on the bra clasp was fatally compromised by a combination of it being swept up in a pile of debris on Kercher's floor - and thus placed into direct contact with plenty of other debris, some of which could easily have originate from outside Kercher's room - and its horribly inept handling by the Stefanoni-led forensics "expert" when they "discovered" and collected it in mid-December 2007 - when they inexplicably passed it among themselves with visibly dirty gloves.

That's how the low-template amounts of DNA from two as-yet-unidentified males came to get onto the tiny metal hook of the bra clasp; and that's how the low-template amount of Sollecito's DNA came to get onto the tiny metal hook of the bra clasp.

And that's before we even get to Stefanoni's unfit-for-purpose laboratory, with a shocking lack of understanding/adherence to the critical protocols and processes required for examining low-template DNA, and the consequent wide-open possibility for laboratory contamination.....)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 07:15 AM   #215
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I cannot see that you are correct. According to murderofmeredithkercher.com, Fingerprint no. 72 IS on the door to Meredith Kercher's room.
Yes, Fr. 72 IS on the inner side of Meredith's door. But Fr. 72 remains an unidentified print. Raffaele's prints (Fr. 68 and Fr. 70) are on the outer side of Meredith's door. This is confirmed both with the print diagram and in Giunta's court testimony. I laid this all out for you, including Giunta's testimony, in a previous post but apparently you didn't understand it.

"According to TMoMK" ? Are you kidding? You yourself suggested reading Giunta's testimony. So why now are you pointing to the fake wiki to support your claim? How about you post the portion of Giunta's testimony that supports your claim or just admit you've got this wrong and move on. It's this incessant need of yours to continue to argue something, even in the face of overwhelming, indisputable evidence to the contrary, that destroys your credibility.

Oh, and btw, we're still waiting for evidence of Amanda washing Meredith's blood from her hands and of Amanda being at the cottage at the time of the murder. We're being patient but it HAS been almost 10 years since the murder... shouldn't this evidence be readily available? Just sayin...
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 07:33 AM   #216
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Unfortunately you do not understand of which you are writing either, Vixen.

The point here - and it's a point which Planigale explained very clearly and at some length in the post to which you responded - is nothing to do with the identification of that (low template amount of) DNA as Sollecito's. Rather, the point is ENTIRELY about the provenance and transference of that DNA.

And to illustrate this point further - and more vividly still - perhaps you'd like to explain just how the DNA of at least two other male contributors came to be discovered on that tiny bra clasp hook, Vixen? That DNA belonged to specific individuals. Did those individuals touch Kercher's bra clasp hook, Vixen?



(I'll tell you the truth of the matter to help you along if you like: the truth is that this tiny metal hook on the bra clasp was fatally compromised by a combination of it being swept up in a pile of debris on Kercher's floor - and thus placed into direct contact with plenty of other debris, some of which could easily have originate from outside Kercher's room - and its horribly inept handling by the Stefanoni-led forensics "expert" when they "discovered" and collected it in mid-December 2007 - when they inexplicably passed it among themselves with visibly dirty gloves.

That's how the low-template amounts of DNA from two as-yet-unidentified males came to get onto the tiny metal hook of the bra clasp; and that's how the low-template amount of Sollecito's DNA came to get onto the tiny metal hook of the bra clasp.

And that's before we even get to Stefanoni's unfit-for-purpose laboratory, with a shocking lack of understanding/adherence to the critical protocols and processes required for examining low-template DNA, and the consequent wide-open possibility for laboratory contamination.....)
Note that it's not even necessary to claim this is definitively how his DNA got there, only that it's a very reasonable possibility and that means this evidence does not rise above BARD.

What further proves this DNA to be non-primary transfer is that it is 1/6th that of Meredith's own DNA. If Raffaele has been involved in the attack and deposited his DNA at that time it would be reasonable to assume he would have been perspiring heavily when he touched the hook and that would have left significant DNA. In fact, his DNA should have become the dominant DNA on the hook. Then there's the whole "how did he get his DNA on the hook (which is NOT exposed when the bra is being worn) without getting his DNA elsewhere on the bra.

You gotta love Vixen's diversionary tactic of tossing out the "> 3 billion to one" line as if that was the least bit relevant. This is not about who's DNA it is but how that DNA got there. Being absolutely certain it's Raffaele's means nothing if it's shown it likely got there via secondary or tertiary transfer.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 07:33 AM   #217
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,619
Originally Posted by LondonJohn
As you very well know (and as any lurker deserves to know), the fake wiki "murderofmeredithkercher.com" is notoriously biassed against Knox/Sollecito in its interpretation of evidence. And that bias is evident in this instance. Your "source" is biassed and incorrect. The print was found on the corridor-side face of the door.
Originally Posted by Welshman
The numerous falsehoods told by Vixen have been pointed out by myself and others and Vixen has the cheek to attack people for lying. PGP are completely shameless in their hypocrisy.
Originally Posted by Planigale
Unfortunately this Ergon obviously does not understand of which he/she is writing.

Trace DNA is DNA that is not associated with a source. So the DNA from blood stains or semen is not trace. DNA from the bra hook is trace because there is no knowing if the source is blood, saliva, touch etc. Trace DNA may or mayn't be LCN but they are entirely unrelated concepts.

Steffanoni herself says that the quantity of DNA attributable to Sollecito cannot be known because it is part of a mix of DNA. But this Ergon obviously knows more than Steffanoni.
Originally Posted by Vixen
You are wrong, as there is no requirement to know the source of the DNA.
Vixen, lurkers here might not have read when you say that it is possible to know the origin of trace DNA. Yes, I know that your argument in the highlighted text is a little different, but you make other arguments which require you to know the origin of trace DNA.

It's bound to come around sooner or later - you continually repeat that the last court, the one which acquitted the pair found as factual that Knox had rubbed Meredith's blood from her hands.

That was Sept 2015. Yet when one tracks back to the 2010 Massei report, the one written to justify the first (wrongful-)conviction, one finds a few curious things.
- Stefanoni herself confirmed that forensically speaking, one could not determine the origin of the trace DNA from Amanda mixed with Meredith's blood, found in the very bathroom they'd shared for weeks.

- Massei himself on behalf of the court accepts that there are no forensics, per se, to support a contention that Amanda's DNA came from skin cells

- this is even before considering that on other matters in that very same report, Massei rejects the significance of another's potential DNA being found because "DNA cannot be date-stamped".

- Massei himself claims that it had to have been Amanda's skin cells rubbed off in the action of cleaning blood from herself, only because that notion fits the other surmises he makes. That is the sum-total of his judicial reasoning.

- No one, much less Massei, has then explained how that blood got on to Knox in the first place, given that there are no forensics, and specifically blood-forensics, of Knox in the murder-room itself. (Unlike Rudy Guede who has his fingerprints in Merediths blood in the murder room!)

- In 2015, the Marasca-Bruno panel in acquitting the pair said of this that even if it were true, then Amanda would have had to have picked up this blood in another part of the house and at a time after the murder.
There's cake. There's eating it. You can't have both. It's more than that there is no requirement to know the origin of trace-DNA, it's that when you repeat ad naseam that it is proven that Knox rubbed the victim's blood from her hands, you are claiming that it becomes mandatory to know the origin of trace-DNA.

And why are we arguing this anyway? This is the bathroom that Kercher and Knox shared for weeks. When Rudy Guede entered the bathroom after murdering the victim, the former of which he readily admits he did, he spread Meredith's blood to surfaces rich with both Amanda's and Meredith's pre-existing DNA.

Unless you're now going to argue that DNA can, indeed, be date-stamped.

BTW - Massei in 2010 got around this by saying that Knox had claimed that the bathroom had been cleaned. Really? Did Knox say she'd cleaned it to the molecular, DNA-free level? This is the girl who was criticised for not being able to clean a toilet - so much so, that the 2nd prosecutor, Crini in Florence, said that the unclean toilet was the motive for murder!!!! (That's how weird this case got.)

Lurkers here might want to delve into this for themselves; this has been the guilt PR-campaign ever since the police leaked stuff to the tabloids.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 3rd August 2017 at 08:28 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 08:55 AM   #218
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,319
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The quote is:

Quote:
There is a low possibility (less than 5%) that a DNA profile will be observed 24 h after the contact that led to the transfer." (p.78)
Ergon comments:



and



All clear now?
Apparently you failed to understand in my previous post that this is NOT a quote from GILL. It is from his book where he is discussing and quoting previously published literature. It is taken out of that context and fails to provide what else was said in that literature or what Gill says about it. Since Ergon fails to mention any of this, it is apparent he has taken this from the Amazon "Look inside" result and paraphrased it. That search result is this:

Quote:
page 78...published scientific literature - There is a very low probability (less than 5%) that a DNA profile will be observed 24 h after the contact that led to the transfer.
Compare that to what Ergon said:

Quote:
Try reading Peter Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" where he contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77)
Notice that Ergon puts his own words into his quote that do not exist in the original: via passive transfer. Nowhere do those words appear in the quote from Gill's book.

Ergon is not a forensics expert yet he seems to think he knows more than actual forensic scientists including one of, if not the, most respected forensic experts in the world.
Edited by jsfisher:  ...<snip>... Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

Last edited by jsfisher; 4th August 2017 at 06:18 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:11 AM   #219
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,619
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Originally Posted by Ergon
Try reading Peter Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" where he contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77)
Notice that Ergon puts his own words into his quote that do not exist in the original: via passive transfer. Nowhere do those words appear in the quote from Gill's book.

Ergon is not a forensics expert yet he seems to think he knows more than actual forensic scientists including one of, if not the, most respected forensic experts in the world.
Edited by jsfisher:  ...<snip>... Moderated content redacted.
This is the reason why people should stop reading the fake-Wiki.

TMoMK wiki was started by a shadowy "Edward McCall" so that the pro-guilt side would have a short and snappy information source online. It has made great strides in publishing original documents, even if it remains unknown how they'd acquired them. Fact is - they have them.

But Ergon is now the effective caretaker of the fake-Wiki. It is not user editable, and the vast majority of entries are done by a single author - and most have as their last "edit" as being done before even the 2014 Florence reconviction.

I used to turn to it to find out what was what on that side of the fence. Yet the authors of the articles there are far, far, far too prone to add phrases like "via passive transfer" just to help out the reader in understanding the guilt-side of things(!!)

I have no idea if it is still there, but I gave up when one of their articles offered as proof that Vecchiotti must be corrupt, because Francesco Maresca (the Kercher's lawyer) saw Vecchiotti going to lunch once with a defence lawyer. (Apparently is it corrupt for an independent, forensic-DNA expert to brief the defence on what they have found!!!!)

So why would anyone be surprised when Vixen cites the fake-Wiki as proving that Raffaele's fingerprint had been found on the inside of Meredith's door!? (Even if the forensics do not support that!)

The fake-Wiki is not making a case, it is fabricating a case. As demonstrated by the last few posts on this thread.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by jsfisher; 4th August 2017 at 06:19 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 12:24 PM   #220
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,619
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Note that it's not even necessary to claim this is definitively how his DNA got there, only that it's a very reasonable possibility and that means this evidence does not rise above BARD.
Correct me if I am wrong, but each piece of evidence, in and of itself, is not to be judged using BARD. It's just the overall, assembled case that the prosecution constructs that must meet that threshhold.

Most evidence is either evident or it isn't. It's either Raffaele's fingerprint on the interior of Meredith's door or it isn't.

With other kinds of evidence - like Rudy claiming that he'd been in the cottage with Meredith's consent, that there's an "innocent" explanation for his DNA being inside her, and his claim that he witnessed a fight between Knox and Kercher over rent money - you either believe it or you don't.

None of those two things are measured by BARD. Just the overall case assembled by the prosecution.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 3rd August 2017 at 12:25 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:23 PM   #221
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
[...]

Well, it looks like whoever made that "fingerprint map" mislabeled the prints on the inside of Meredith Kercher's bedroom door. This is from the final fingerprint report made by the Direzione centrale anticrimine della polizia di Stato (page 6):
Quote:
- Nr.1 (uno), contraddistinto con il nr. 72 sul montante altezza serratura della porta della camera da letto;
- Nr.1 (uno), contraddistinto con il nr. 73 sul telaio lato interno sx della porta della camera da letto;
- Nr.1 (uno), contraddistinto con il nr. 83 all'interno della maniglia interna della porta di ingresso della camera;
Long story short: prints Fr.73 and Fr.83 are mislabled in the map as Fr.72
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I cannot see that you are correct. According to murderofmeredithkercher.com, Fingerprint no. 72 IS on the door to Meredith Kercher's room.

Of course you cannot.
Right, "Fingerprint no. 72 IS on the door to Meredith Kercher's room." and as it is written in the fingerprint report:
Quote:
Nr.1 (uno), contraddistinto con il nr. 72 sul montante altezza serratura della porta della camera da letto;
... and that's the violet colored (= Sollecito match) Fr. 72 located on the outside of the door to Meredith Kercher's bedroom in the fingerprint map:


It should be obvious from the fingerprint report however, that the two green colored (= Utile no attribuita) Fr. 72's on the inside of the door to Meredith Kercher's bedroom are the mislabled Fr. 73 and Fr. 83.
Quote:
- Nr.1 (uno), contraddistinto con il nr. 73 sul telaio lato interno sx della porta della camera da letto;
- Nr.1 (uno), contraddistinto con il nr. 83 all'interno della maniglia interna della porta di ingresso della camera;
...or do you really think that there are 3 Fr. 72's? Well, if that's the case, it speaks volumes about the quality - or lack thereof - of the investigation, don't you think?
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."

Last edited by Methos; 3rd August 2017 at 02:59 PM.
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:41 PM   #222
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, but each piece of evidence, in and of itself, is not to be judged using BARD. It's just the overall, assembled case that the prosecution constructs that must meet that threshhold.

Most evidence is either evident or it isn't. It's either Raffaele's fingerprint on the interior of Meredith's door or it isn't.

With other kinds of evidence - like Rudy claiming that he'd been in the cottage with Meredith's consent, that there's an "innocent" explanation for his DNA being inside her, and his claim that he witnessed a fight between Knox and Kercher over rent money - you either believe it or you don't.

None of those two things are measured by BARD. Just the overall case assembled by the prosecution.

You're correct.

In effect, every single piece of evidence (including witness testimony) has to pass a threshold of credibility and reliability. And only those pieces of evidence which pass the credibility/reliability test should be used to build the case against the defendant.

So, for example, say that in a case (a hypothetical case, not Knox/Sollecito) an eyewitness claims he saw the defendant shoot the victim in an otherwise deserted street. Now, if the witness is a practising surgeon with very good eyesight who was standing 10 yards away from the crime, and the assailant was clearly lit by a streetlight and looked straight at the witness at one point, and the witness unequivocally picked out the defendant in a properly-run identity parade, then it's a near-certainty that the witness' testimony will easily pass the reliability/credibility test, and can therefore be used to build the case against the defendant.

But imagine instead that the eyewitness in question was a drug-addicted homeless man with severe mental health issues, who had experienced delusions and hallucinations many times in the past, and he says he only caught a fleeting glimpse of the assailant with almost no lighting, and he failed to pick out the defendant first time in an identity parade, and he claimed that the assailant shot the pistol with his left hand, whereas the defendant is right handed. In this case, it's probable that the witness' testimony would fail the credibility/reliability test, and as a result it should not be used to build the case against the defendant.

In the Knox/Sollecito case, we were faced with the strange spectacle of literally not one single piece of the prosecution's evidence/testimony set passing this notional credibility/reliability test. Literally every single piece of forensic "evidence" was extraordinarily flawed, every single piece of prosecution witness testimony was fundamentally lacking in credibility and reliability. The investigating authorities in this case messed up the investigation so horrifically that it's a scandal that Knox and Sollecito were ever charged or brought to trial in the first place. On the other hand, Guede, fortunately, was caught and correctly convicted almost in spite of the investigators and prosecutors: he left his handprint in Kercher's blood on a pillowcase placed under her body, he left his (reliable quantity of) DNA around and inside the victim's genitals, and he provably went out dancing in the city centre discos literally within hours of the murder (when he subsequently claimed that he'd been terrified by the "real killers"...).

Fortunately, the Marasca SC panel cut through it all with its overarching conclusion that the whole investigation and prosecution of Knox and Sollecito was inept, riddled with incompetence, and incapable of being salvaged in any meaningful way whatsoever. It correctly pointed out numerous glaring examples where the Massei and/or Nencini courts manifestly should not have accepted prosecution evidence/testimony as credible or reliable. And it correctly pointed out that there never was - and never could be in the future - credible/reliable evidence that would come within a (notional, metaphorical) million miles of proving the participation of Knox and/or Sollecito in the Kercher murder.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 02:51 PM   #223
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,619
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
You're correct.
《fx faint》
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 03:38 PM   #224
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,319
According to Chieffi, who overturned Hellmann, No BARD + No BARD + No BARD + No BARD + No BARD = BARD. I don't know how logic works in Italy, but that doesn't pass the logic test in courts here.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 03:58 PM   #225
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
A shadowy guilter pseudo-named Harry Rag/The Machine at one time listed these supposed-lies, as well as an anonymous blogger whose blog is now off-line.

Here's a re-post of what (unless someone can add to it) the alleged lies either Knox or Sollectio told....
There you go. See if you agree whether or not these are bona fide lies.

Compare and contrast with the lies told about Raffaele and Amanda.
In view of how Vixen and otother have constantly attacked Amanda and Raffaele for telling umpteen lies, the question needs to be asked is this accusation justified. The above lists are lies supposedly told by Raffaele. It is significant the list talks about lies told by Raffaele and not by Amanda considering that Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda telling numerous lies. I will go through the list.

Lie seven and eight say that Raffaele had lied that about receiving a telephone call from his father and using the internet on the night of the murder. Raffaele had mixed up the nights of the 31st and 1st of November.


Raffaele describe the circumstances of what happened in the interrogation in his book

“They wanted me to sign a statement they had prepared. The first part was a big mash up of the events of October 31 and November most of which I have to admit was the result of my own confusion”

Lie five says Raffaele said “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

Raffaele says this statement was written by the police and not his words. This is what Raffaele says about the statement in his book

“I objected to just one paragraph. It was a logicial continuation of what the police already had met saying, but I missed the connection; I just knew this part was not right. It read (as above)

I told my interrogations this part needed to be changed, but they wouldn’t back down. Instead, they unexpectedly became much friendlier and said I shouldn’t worry about this paragraph”

Lie ten says Raffaele had lied about Meredith pricking her hand with Raffaele’s knife. Raffaele had been told Meredith’s DNA was on the knife which was not true and the story about Meredith pricking herself with the knife was a desperate response. I understand this story was in Raffaele’s diary and this was not told to anyone. The story only came out when Raffaele’s diary was seized.

Lie six claims Amanda and Raffaele could not remember what they did on the night of the murder due to the effects of Canabbis. Lie nine says that Raffaele claimed he had slept until 10.00 am when he had switched on his mobile and used his computer during thenight. When did Amanda and Raffaele say they could not remember what they did due to the effects of Cannabis and Raffaele said he was sleeping until 10.00 am whilst using his mobile and computer previously? Is there any record of Amanda and Raffaele saying these things?

Lie two claims that Raffaele lied about being in the apartment because of evidence such as the clasp. The claps is not a valid piece of evidence.

Lie four claims that Raffaele had called the police after they arrived. It has been conclusively proved Raffaeled called the police before their arrival.

Lie one deals with an interview by Kate Mansey. The link below explains what happened with the interview.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/freque...ked-questions/

As can be seen from my post below Vixen tells numerous blatant falsehoods in her posts whilst having the cheek to bang on about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:42 PM   #226
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,619
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
In view of how Vixen and otother have constantly attacked Amanda and Raffaele for telling umpteen lies, the question needs to be asked is this accusation justified. The above lists are lies supposedly told by Raffaele. It is significant the list talks about lies told by Raffaele and not by Amanda considering that Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda telling numerous lies. I will go through the list.
I, too, was puzzled that even though the venom was aimed at Knox, that the **specific** lies guilters harped on about were mainly attributed to Raffaele. I didn't want to say that in reposting this list. Glad someone else picked up on it.

Once upon a time I'd had private PMs with various guilters both here and on IIP. The aim was to really understand what any one of the ones who'd chat had against the pair.

The urge to compile a list came from one such, extended chat with a well known (back then) guilter who in private was eager to talk about evidence. In fairness that person actually admitted, one by one, that much of the evidence was speculative or a result of that dreaded worded - compatibility - meaning that each item of evidence although tenuous, still was compatible with all the other tenuous stuff.

However, the one thing the person would not give up on was, "All the lies Amanda told."

We'd made so much progress on all the other stuff, and the person was genuinely receptive about being pushed. As per your own explanations above, Welshman, this person was actually able to see why we, on this side, gave them the benefit of the doubt on most of the specific alleged lies. The person obviously disagreed, but admitted that we on this side had some valid points.

Except for - guess which - the lie about Lumumba, for which Knox was definitively convicted. Indeed, since I had entered all this in 2011 myself convinced of her culpability with regard to Lumumba and calunnia (which I've since reversed), at least I understood why this person stuck to this one like glue - if for no other reason than if that one was given up on, then why are there any guilters in the first place?

So I went looking for a list of lies. Harry Rag/The Machine had at one time carpet-bombed on-line newspaper stories with his cut and paste stuff, and when he called Knox a liar - the ones listed were what he listed. I compiled them. I have no idea, really, if there are more alleged ones. (I'd also found a blog - now off-line which also listed lies, with some repetitions, but also with a few new ones.)

As you've noted, the lies-alleged were mainly not attributed to Knox, but strangely to Sollecito. It just made the whole phenomenon of guilterdom all the more fascinating, esp. when they'd go off on psychopathology and the like, again with nothing to support that claim either!

Anyway, that's how this rolled.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 3rd August 2017 at 04:46 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 04:55 PM   #227
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,319
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
Lie one deals with an interview by Kate Mansey. The link below explains what happened with the interview.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/freque...ked-questions/
We know that tabloid hacks like Mansey (she did write for The Mirror) do lie in order to sell a hot story. As evidence of this we have Nick Pisa's completely false "GUILTY!" DM story replete with fake verdict, interviews and quotes. We also have the infamous "The Wild Raunchy Past of Foxy Knoxy"
by Andrew Malone which included such lies as Knox being arrested, backup police being called, "gangs of students high on drugs and alcohol throwing rocks" in a "scene out of Baghdad", neighbors too afraid to give their names, and that "it is rare for a party incident involving a 20 year-old to end up in court unless police believe a serious crime has been committed". None of these is true. Not one.

Among Mansey's other articles:

1. Boris Johnson's deputy: 'I had sex with a Chinese spy'
Beauty lures politician to bed then drugs him to take secrets

2.McFly's Danny Jones ditches Miss England 08 for the 07 model

3. Girl, 11, says Baby P monster 'raped me'

4. Alex Reid, the cagefighting boyfriend of Katie Price, has been a cross-dresser since he was a boy, says ex girlfriend

5. Drunken mile-high romp man claims 'I did kiss and fondle Guinness heiress'

Mansey? I take her articles with a HUGE grain of salt.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 3rd August 2017 at 06:28 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 08:31 PM   #228
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, but each piece of evidence, in and of itself, is not to be judged using BARD. It's just the overall, assembled case that the prosecution constructs that must meet that threshhold.

Most evidence is either evident or it isn't. It's either Raffaele's fingerprint on the interior of Meredith's door or it isn't.

With other kinds of evidence - like Rudy claiming that he'd been in the cottage with Meredith's consent, that there's an "innocent" explanation for his DNA being inside her, and his claim that he witnessed a fight between Knox and Kercher over rent money - you either believe it or you don't.

None of those two things are measured by BARD. Just the overall case assembled by the prosecution.
I wrote this several hours ago but never posted it. Just more evidence I should be retired...

Perhaps BARD was a bad choice of acronym but I think each piece of evidence should be evaluated on it's own merits before it becomes part of the bigger picture.

What if a suspect is found with a 9mm gun, the same size that killed the victim, but it's found to have a serious mechanical flaw causing it to jam 95% of the time. You might have a few doubts about it being the gun. Then you find out a shell casing is found at the crime scene but the suspect's gun is a revolver (lets pretend revolvers can jam...). Now you're having some serious doubts. Finally, it's disclosed that there was an intact spider web hanging off the gun when it was collected, which happened less than 12 hours after the murder. None of this would prove this isn't the gun used in the murder but I would think it very unlikely a jury would think it was.

So yeah, you are correct - but honestly, I didn't mean BARD literally. I meant it to mean evidence that isn't credible and isn't likely to later be considered credible due to other, unrelated evidence.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:47 PM   #229
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,619
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I wrote this several hours ago but never posted it. Just more evidence I should be retired...

Perhaps BARD was a bad choice of acronym but I think each piece of evidence should be evaluated on it's own merits before it becomes part of the bigger picture.
I got schooled on this - harshly! - a while ago on this very thread. So take a number....

Once I served as a lay-judge on a professional accreditation disciplinary matter. We were assigned an attorney who schooled us on legalese, including the threshhold of proof we were to apply - on the overall scenario presented at the hearing. In that case it was on the balance of probabilities. The attorney did not make decisions, the attorney only advised.

When deliberating that very issue came up - on any one piece of "evidence", did BOP apply? He said, not really..... the accused had made a claim which had been a potential alibi. The attorney put it to us in as straightforward a manner as possible....

"Do you believe him?" Apparently, it was as simple as that. One panel member said, "Who am I to say if he is sincere or not?" The answer, obviously, is that that person had been appointed to the tribunal so it was their duty to judge. It was, indeed, theirs to say.

We decided to write on a piece of paper (a ballot of sorts) if we believed him or not, just as an opinion. We turned over our ballots at the same time and it was unanimous - none of us believed him.

In a sense, on that item we applied the standard LondonJohn cited above - was the "evidence" reliable and/or credible. That might be more similar to BOP, but it (apparently) is not BARD.

On that and everything else, we held him liable for the misconduct - on the BOP. If it had been up to me, I'd have done it, too, on BARD.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 3rd August 2017 at 09:48 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 11:48 PM   #230
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Unfortunately you do not understand of which you are writing either, Vixen.

The point here - and it's a point which Planigale explained very clearly and at some length in the post to which you responded - is nothing to do with the identification of that (low template amount of) DNA as Sollecito's. Rather, the point is ENTIRELY about the provenance and transference of that DNA.

And to illustrate this point further - and more vividly still - perhaps you'd like to explain just how the DNA of at least two other male contributors came to be discovered on that tiny bra clasp hook, Vixen? That DNA belonged to specific individuals. Did those individuals touch Kercher's bra clasp hook, Vixen?



(I'll tell you the truth of the matter to help you along if you like: the truth is that this tiny metal hook on the bra clasp was fatally compromised by a combination of it being swept up in a pile of debris on Kercher's floor - and thus placed into direct contact with plenty of other debris, some of which could easily have originate from outside Kercher's room - and its horribly inept handling by the Stefanoni-led forensics "expert" when they "discovered" and collected it in mid-December 2007 - when they inexplicably passed it among themselves with visibly dirty gloves.

That's how the low-template amounts of DNA from two as-yet-unidentified males came to get onto the tiny metal hook of the bra clasp; and that's how the low-template amount of Sollecito's DNA came to get onto the tiny metal hook of the bra clasp.

And that's before we even get to Stefanoni's unfit-for-purpose laboratory, with a shocking lack of understanding/adherence to the critical protocols and processes required for examining low-template DNA, and the consequent wide-open possibility for laboratory contamination.....)
Stop talking nonsense that was refuted a long time ago, on several occasions. The fragmented STR's found are typical of that found in household dust. They had STR's of less than six matching alleles. In other words, background contamination. (Awfully sorry, but crime scene are rarely sterile.)

Raff's DNA was the full shebang.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 11:49 PM   #231
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Yes, Fr. 72 IS on the inner side of Meredith's door. But Fr. 72 remains an unidentified print. Raffaele's prints (Fr. 68 and Fr. 70) are on the outer side of Meredith's door. This is confirmed both with the print diagram and in Giunta's court testimony. I laid this all out for you, including Giunta's testimony, in a previous post but apparently you didn't understand it.

"According to TMoMK" ? Are you kidding? You yourself suggested reading Giunta's testimony. So why now are you pointing to the fake wiki to support your claim? How about you post the portion of Giunta's testimony that supports your claim or just admit you've got this wrong and move on. It's this incessant need of yours to continue to argue something, even in the face of overwhelming, indisputable evidence to the contrary, that destroys your credibility.

Oh, and btw, we're still waiting for evidence of Amanda washing Meredith's blood from her hands and of Amanda being at the cottage at the time of the murder. We're being patient but it HAS been almost 10 years since the murder... shouldn't this evidence be readily available? Just sayin...
Do keep up. Go back a few days and you will see it.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 11:53 PM   #232
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Note that it's not even necessary to claim this is definitively how his DNA got there, only that it's a very reasonable possibility and that means this evidence does not rise above BARD.

What further proves this DNA to be non-primary transfer is that it is 1/6th that of Meredith's own DNA. If Raffaele has been involved in the attack and deposited his DNA at that time it would be reasonable to assume he would have been perspiring heavily when he touched the hook and that would have left significant DNA. In fact, his DNA should have become the dominant DNA on the hook. Then there's the whole "how did he get his DNA on the hook (which is NOT exposed when the bra is being worn) without getting his DNA elsewhere on the bra.

You gotta love Vixen's diversionary tactic of tossing out the "> 3 billion to one" line as if that was the least bit relevant. This is not about who's DNA it is but how that DNA got there. Being absolutely certain it's Raffaele's means nothing if it's shown it likely got there via secondary or tertiary transfer.
The trial courts were happy that the evidence of the pair's guilt is overwhelming. Not even Marasca can bring itself to say, 'innocent', and despite the annulment, they spell it out large that the pair lied and lied and lied, obstructed the police, were there during the murder, did wash off the victim's blood and did cover up for Rudy Guede.

Please reflect on this until the penny drops.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 11:56 PM   #233
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Vixen, lurkers here might not have read when you say that it is possible to know the origin of trace DNA. Yes, I know that your argument in the highlighted text is a little different, but you make other arguments which require you to know the origin of trace DNA.

It's bound to come around sooner or later - you continually repeat that the last court, the one which acquitted the pair found as factual that Knox had rubbed Meredith's blood from her hands.

That was Sept 2015. Yet when one tracks back to the 2010 Massei report, the one written to justify the first (wrongful-)conviction, one finds a few curious things.
- Stefanoni herself confirmed that forensically speaking, one could not determine the origin of the trace DNA from Amanda mixed with Meredith's blood, found in the very bathroom they'd shared for weeks.

- Massei himself on behalf of the court accepts that there are no forensics, per se, to support a contention that Amanda's DNA came from skin cells

- this is even before considering that on other matters in that very same report, Massei rejects the significance of another's potential DNA being found because "DNA cannot be date-stamped".

- Massei himself claims that it had to have been Amanda's skin cells rubbed off in the action of cleaning blood from herself, only because that notion fits the other surmises he makes. That is the sum-total of his judicial reasoning.

- No one, much less Massei, has then explained how that blood got on to Knox in the first place, given that there are no forensics, and specifically blood-forensics, of Knox in the murder-room itself. (Unlike Rudy Guede who has his fingerprints in Merediths blood in the murder room!)

- In 2015, the Marasca-Bruno panel in acquitting the pair said of this that even if it were true, then Amanda would have had to have picked up this blood in another part of the house and at a time after the murder.
There's cake. There's eating it. You can't have both. It's more than that there is no requirement to know the origin of trace-DNA, it's that when you repeat ad naseam that it is proven that Knox rubbed the victim's blood from her hands, you are claiming that it becomes mandatory to know the origin of trace-DNA.

And why are we arguing this anyway? This is the bathroom that Kercher and Knox shared for weeks. When Rudy Guede entered the bathroom after murdering the victim, the former of which he readily admits he did, he spread Meredith's blood to surfaces rich with both Amanda's and Meredith's pre-existing DNA.

Unless you're now going to argue that DNA can, indeed, be date-stamped.

BTW - Massei in 2010 got around this by saying that Knox had claimed that the bathroom had been cleaned. Really? Did Knox say she'd cleaned it to the molecular, DNA-free level? This is the girl who was criticised for not being able to clean a toilet - so much so, that the 2nd prosecutor, Crini in Florence, said that the unclean toilet was the motive for murder!!!! (That's how weird this case got.)

Lurkers here might want to delve into this for themselves; this has been the guilt PR-campaign ever since the police leaked stuff to the tabloids.

How long does it take for you to realise that the court is inferring the reason Knox has blood on her person is because she was spattered during the murder.

BTW Here is a presumptive bodily fluids tests check list. http://www.ncids.com/forensic/serology/serology.shtml

We can date-stamp reasonably the victim's DNA, collected from stains that are obviously blood and in such quantity that only a simpleton would argue it didn't come from the murder night.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Last edited by Vixen; 4th August 2017 at 01:11 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 12:37 AM   #234
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This is the reason why people should stop reading the fake-Wiki.

TMoMK wiki was started by a shadowy "Edward McCall" so that the pro-guilt side would have a short and snappy information source online. It has made great strides in publishing original documents, even if it remains unknown how they'd acquired them. Fact is - they have them.

But Ergon is now the effective caretaker of the fake-Wiki. It is not user editable, and the vast majority of entries are done by a single author - and most have as their last "edit" as being done before even the 2014 Florence reconviction.

I used to turn to it to find out what was what on that side of the fence. Yet the authors of the articles there are far, far, far too prone to add phrases like "via passive transfer" just to help out the reader in understanding the guilt-side of things(!!)

I have no idea if it is still there, but I gave up when one of their articles offered as proof that Vecchiotti must be corrupt, because Francesco Maresca (the Kercher's lawyer) saw Vecchiotti going to lunch once with a defence lawyer. (Apparently is it corrupt for an independent, forensic-DNA expert to brief the defence on what they have found!!!!)

So why would anyone be surprised when Vixen cites the fake-Wiki as proving that Raffaele's fingerprint had been found on the inside of Meredith's door!? (Even if the forensics do not support that!)

The fake-Wiki is not making a case, it is fabricating a case. As demonstrated by the last few posts on this thread.
Indeed it is, and in England and Wales a barrister would be struck off for such behaviour. Vecchiotti and Conti were court appointed and should never have met privately with either party during the trial. Each side is entitled to full disclosure of the on-going trial.

Actually, 'murderofmeredithkercher.com' is Bruce Fischer's fake wiki. Hardly any hits, compared to 'themurderofmeredithkercher.com' which has up to 2K hits per diem according to Alexis.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 12:50 AM   #235
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Of course you cannot.
Right, "Fingerprint no. 72 IS on the door to Meredith Kercher's room." and as it is written in the fingerprint report:
... and that's the violet colored (= Sollecito match) Fr. 72 located on the outside of the door to Meredith Kercher's bedroom in the fingerprint map:


It should be obvious from the fingerprint report however, that the two green colored (= Utile no attribuita) Fr. 72's on the inside of the door to Meredith Kercher's bedroom are the mislabled Fr. 73 and Fr. 83.

...or do you really think that there are 3 Fr. 72's? Well, if that's the case, it speaks volumes about the quality - or lack thereof - of the investigation, don't you think?

Methos, the labelling is as per the police photos.

No. 72 is as attached. It is clearly on the inner edge of the door. It could be that only the one mark is positively identified as Raff's, or, alternatively, the whole thing is just one continuous fingerprint with a break in between, making it look like two prints.

From http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...l-censored.pdf

72 is on the inside door edge MK bedroom (page 119)
73 is on the inside door frame MK bedroom (page 120)
83 "contraddistinto con il nr. 83 all'interno della maniglia interna della porta di ingresso della camera; Nr.1 (one), marked with no. 83 inside the inner door handle of the chamber door;". (Don't know where that is, but according to the picture, not Meredith's bedroom?)

They're all unattributed, so only 72 shows up on the fingerprint map on the wiki. Pictures attached.
Attached Images
File Type: jpeg door of mk room #72.jpeg (29.4 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpeg inner edge of mk door #72.jpeg (63.3 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpg Unattributed fingerprint 73.jpg (42.5 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpg Unattributed fingerprint 83.jpg (65.7 KB, 0 views)
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 12:57 AM   #236
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
In view of how Vixen and otother have constantly attacked Amanda and Raffaele for telling umpteen lies, the question needs to be asked is this accusation justified. The above lists are lies supposedly told by Raffaele. It is significant the list talks about lies told by Raffaele and not by Amanda considering that Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda telling numerous lies. I will go through the list.

Lie seven and eight say that Raffaele had lied that about receiving a telephone call from his father and using the internet on the night of the murder. Raffaele had mixed up the nights of the 31st and 1st of November.


Raffaele describe the circumstances of what happened in the interrogation in his book

“They wanted me to sign a statement they had prepared. The first part was a big mash up of the events of October 31 and November most of which I have to admit was the result of my own confusion”

Lie five says Raffaele said “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

Raffaele says this statement was written by the police and not his words. This is what Raffaele says about the statement in his book

“I objected to just one paragraph. It was a logicial continuation of what the police already had met saying, but I missed the connection; I just knew this part was not right. It read (as above)

I told my interrogations this part needed to be changed, but they wouldn’t back down. Instead, they unexpectedly became much friendlier and said I shouldn’t worry about this paragraph”

Lie ten says Raffaele had lied about Meredith pricking her hand with Raffaele’s knife. Raffaele had been told Meredith’s DNA was on the knife which was not true and the story about Meredith pricking herself with the knife was a desperate response. I understand this story was in Raffaele’s diary and this was not told to anyone. The story only came out when Raffaele’s diary was seized.

Lie six claims Amanda and Raffaele could not remember what they did on the night of the murder due to the effects of Canabbis. Lie nine says that Raffaele claimed he had slept until 10.00 am when he had switched on his mobile and used his computer during thenight. When did Amanda and Raffaele say they could not remember what they did due to the effects of Cannabis and Raffaele said he was sleeping until 10.00 am whilst using his mobile and computer previously? Is there any record of Amanda and Raffaele saying these things?

Lie two claims that Raffaele lied about being in the apartment because of evidence such as the clasp. The claps is not a valid piece of evidence.

Lie four claims that Raffaele had called the police after they arrived. It has been conclusively proved Raffaeled called the police before their arrival.

Lie one deals with an interview by Kate Mansey. The link below explains what happened with the interview.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/freque...ked-questions/

As can be seen from my post below Vixen tells numerous blatant falsehoods in her posts whilst having the cheek to bang on about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562

That is not true. It was in a letter Raff wrote to his Papa. One can infer it was to preclude the findings he was expecting.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 02:00 AM   #237
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stop talking nonsense that was refuted a long time ago, on several occasions. The fragmented STR's found are typical of that found in household dust. They had STR's of less than six matching alleles. In other words, background contamination. (Awfully sorry, but crime scene are rarely sterile.)

Raff's DNA was the full shebang.

"The fragmented STRs"

"They had STRs of less than six matching alleles"

"Background contamination"

LMAO

Such a lack of understanding of DNA forensic science, peppered with incorrect and inappropriate usage of "science-y" terminology
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 02:09 AM   #238
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Indeed it is, and in England and Wales a barrister would be struck off for such behaviour. Vecchiotti and Conti were court appointed and should never have met privately with either party during the trial. Each side is entitled to full disclosure of the on-going trial.

Actually, 'murderofmeredithkercher.com' is Bruce Fischer's fake wiki. Hardly any hits, compared to 'themurderofmeredithkercher.com' which has up to 2K hits per diem according to Alexis.

Erm, you mean Alexa, not "Alexis". Please try to be more precise.

And what do you mean by "hits"? That fake wiki gets around 2,500 page views per day ("per diem" LMAO), but around 500 actual visits per day. And we know who's making most of those 500 visits per day don't we, Vixen? (Hint: it's not journalists from global media organisations )

And please provide evidence that Conti and/or Vecchiotti "met privately" with either party during the trial.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 02:13 AM   #239
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That is not true. It was in a letter Raff wrote to his Papa. One can infer it was to preclude the findings he was expecting.


"In a letter Raff Sollecito wrote to his father"?

Why do you simply make stuff up? It wasn't in any letter to his father. You just pulled that out of thin air. It was in his prison diary/notebook.

Please can you try not to make stuff up? And please can you try to source your claims? (That will also help you not to make stuff up)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-cooking.html
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 02:19 AM   #240
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Methos, the labelling is as per the police photos.

No. 72 is as attached. It is clearly on the inner edge of the door. It could be that only the one mark is positively identified as Raff's, or, alternatively, the whole thing is just one continuous fingerprint with a break in between, making it look like two prints.

From http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...l-censored.pdf

72 is on the inside door edge MK bedroom (page 119)
73 is on the inside door frame MK bedroom (page 120)
83 "contraddistinto con il nr. 83 all'interno della maniglia interna della porta di ingresso della camera; Nr.1 (one), marked with no. 83 inside the inner door handle of the chamber door;". (Don't know where that is, but according to the picture, not Meredith's bedroom?)

They're all unattributed, so only 72 shows up on the fingerprint map on the wiki. Pictures attached.

Wow. This is one giant heap of made-up and incorrect.

I'll say it once again for you, Vixen: The only print of Sollecito's that was discovered on Kercher's bedroom door was found on the face of the door which faced the corridor - not the face which faced into Kercher's room itself.

(Should I do it in oversized red font? LMAO)

And I ask once again: if Sollecito's fingerprint really had been found on the face of that door which faced the inside of Kercher's room, then how can you possibly account for this "fact" not forming a significant part of the prosecution's argument against Sollecito (and, by extension, against Knox)?

The truth of the matter, Vixen, is that no fingerprint of Sollecito's was found on the Kercher-room-facing face of that door. And that, of course, is why no such print ever figured in the prosecution argument in any of the trials.

Next.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.