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 12th November 2019, 12:31 PM   #241
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,649
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
LOL! Exactly what are you, Vixen, other than a layman? You have a long history of giving 'examples'. May we see your scientific credentials? What? You have none? SHOCK!

I notice that you don't dispute the truth of those examples; instead you attack Rolfe and me. Why is that?



No, a credible journalist cannot "use any term" they "like". A credible journalist, when QUOTING someone, will repeat exactly what was said, not "any term" they "like".

Barbie Nadeau, that paragon of journalistic integrity so often touted by the PGP, QUOTED Stefanoni's testimony. If Barbie misquoted what Stefanoni said, then that's on her.

But let's get back to the subject of the discussion which was, as you claimed:

(post #231)

Here's an interesting quote from Stefanoni's testimony:




http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...%27s_Testimony

But I thought you said they always use the the word 'compatible' or 'not compatible' in court?
Er, she just used it...?
__________________
Do you curse where you come from, Do you swear in the night
Will it mean much to you, If I treat you right.
Do you like what you're doing, Would you do it some more
Or will you stop once and wonder
What you're doing it for. ~ Nick Drake
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 12th November 2019, 12:51 PM   #242
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,924
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, she just used it...?
Oh, no. Not another "Er, did you miss the bit that said, 'snow storm'?"

Quote:
Ten to eighteen key points where they do match is statistically significant that the print or DNA was not left by some random person but the person identified as it being 'compatible' to.
She didn't use it in the way you claimed, Vix. But nice try.

Now, how about answering my questions? Well....maybe you already have by not answering them.
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 12th November 2019, 02:20 PM   #243
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,387
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
My mother had a rare blood group (A or AB) and was in constant demand by the Blood Transfusion services. She received several nice brooches from them as a 'thank you'.
Kudos to your mother. She was in the business of saving lives.
__________________
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 12th November 2019, 02:21 PM   #244
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,387
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No, blood group O would not be 'compatible' with a huge number of other people. It MATCHES more than half the population. You are either group O or you are not. In a forensic crime scene this means sweet zippo.

A DNA sequence does not have to 'match in its entirety' in a criminal court. All that's needed is a ten-allele match in an English court to provide sound suspect identification (together with other evidence).

In the Kercher case 15-alleles were found of Mez on Raff's knife and a full-house 17-alleles of Sollecito found on the victim's underwear.

Not even the defence could argue with this.
Please stop using the familiar name for the victim.
__________________
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 12th November 2019, 03:05 PM   #245
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,924
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
snip

In the Kercher case 15-alleles were found of Mez on Raff's knife
False. Stefanoni claimed to have found Kercher's DNA on the knife. In a striation no one, including her, could later find. In an analysis that she could not repeat which is required for LCN confirmation. On a knife that had zero blood on it which would only be possible if soaked in bleach which would eliminate any DNA. Which two independent, court appointed experts declared that they "do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis..."


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
...and a full-house 17-alleles of Sollecito found on the victim's underwear.
A sample that two independent, court appointed experts and many of the world's leading forensic experts said was highly indicative of contamination. A conclusion that the ISC agreed with.

Your repeated use of "underwear" instead of "bra hook" does not escape me. The reason for you to do so is no mystery.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Not even the defence could argue with this.[/hilite]
Nice try. What you deliberately leave out is that the defense did, successfully, argue how it got there: by contamination.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 12th November 2019 at 03:06 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 14th November 2019, 06:10 PM   #246
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,193
I always look for (dis)similarities in cases that pop up in the news. From a recent homicide investigation surrounding a missing woman named Jennifer Rothwell:

Quote:
Beau Rothwell, the husband of missing St. Louis County Jennfier, was charged Thursday night in connection with her disappearance.

A probable cause statement said he was caught on video buying cleaning products including bleach, carpet cleaner, and gloves on Nov. 11. Two days later police obtained a search warrant for the Rothwell home where detectives found a wet carpet soaked with bleach and large areas of blood, police said.
It's interesting what a real case with real evidence looks like. In this case they have hard proof cleaning supplies were purchased after the murder, vs a confused shopkeeper who said "nope didn't happen, oh wait I just remembered a year later that it did but was missed by the other employees in the shop and I lied about it for no reason" and at the crime scene the bleach was detected with blood, corroborating its use in a cleanup. As opposed to a bloody crime scene with no signs of a cleanup and no evidence of bleach.

Corroborating evidence creates a strong web of proof that solves a case. I hope Vixen can learn by example.
bagels 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 14th November 2019, 07:25 PM   #247
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,924
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
I always look for (dis)similarities in cases that pop up in the news. From a recent homicide investigation surrounding a missing woman named Jennifer Rothwell:



It's interesting what a real case with real evidence looks like. In this case they have hard proof cleaning supplies were purchased after the murder, vs a confused shopkeeper who said "nope didn't happen, oh wait I just remembered a year later that it did but was missed by the other employees in the shop and I lied about it for no reason" and at the crime scene the bleach was detected with blood, corroborating its use in a cleanup. As opposed to a bloody crime scene with no signs of a cleanup and no evidence of bleach.

Corroborating evidence creates a strong web of proof that solves a case. I hope Vixen can learn by example.
"wet carpet soaked with bleach"

If a carpet was soaked in bleach it would also be very discolored. They would be able to see it besides it being wet.

ETA: We have to remember all that evidence of a clean up the prosecution presented in court in Italy....

oh.....wait.....never mind.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 14th November 2019 at 08:20 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 15th November 2019, 05:03 AM   #248
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,649
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
I always look for (dis)similarities in cases that pop up in the news. From a recent homicide investigation surrounding a missing woman named Jennifer Rothwell:



It's interesting what a real case with real evidence looks like. In this case they have hard proof cleaning supplies were purchased after the murder, vs a confused shopkeeper who said "nope didn't happen, oh wait I just remembered a year later that it did but was missed by the other employees in the shop and I lied about it for no reason" and at the crime scene the bleach was detected with blood, corroborating its use in a cleanup. As opposed to a bloody crime scene with no signs of a cleanup and no evidence of bleach.

Corroborating evidence creates a strong web of proof that solves a case. I hope Vixen can learn by example.
The flooring at Via Pergola 7 was terracotta tiling (possibly fake). However, a set of one-sided footprints were highlighted, together with the bare feet of Knox and Sollecito, when luminol was applied.

Plus there is only two thirds of a bloodied footprint on the bathmat.

You don't need to be a genius to spot there was a clean up.

Police testified there was a 'strong smell of bleach' when they entered Raff's apartment.

In the world of Bagels the police are also bent.
__________________
Do you curse where you come from, Do you swear in the night
Will it mean much to you, If I treat you right.
Do you like what you're doing, Would you do it some more
Or will you stop once and wonder
What you're doing it for. ~ Nick Drake
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 15th November 2019, 05:05 AM   #249
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,649
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
"wet carpet soaked with bleach"

If a carpet was soaked in bleach it would also be very discolored. They would be able to see it besides it being wet.

ETA: We have to remember all that evidence of a clean up the prosecution presented in court in Italy....

oh.....wait.....never mind.
In the USA what you call bleach we call 'Flash'.

'Bleach' as you know is just a 'color brightener' not a peroxide or ammonium colour-stripping lightener.
__________________
Do you curse where you come from, Do you swear in the night
Will it mean much to you, If I treat you right.
Do you like what you're doing, Would you do it some more
Or will you stop once and wonder
What you're doing it for. ~ Nick Drake
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 15th November 2019, 05:23 AM   #250
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,387
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The flooring at Via Pergola 7 was terracotta tiling (possibly fake). However, a set of one-sided footprints were highlighted, together with the bare feet of Knox and Sollecito, when luminol was applied.

Plus there is only two thirds of a bloodied footprint on the bathmat.

You don't need to be a genius to spot there was a clean up.

Police testified there was a 'strong smell of bleach' when they entered Raff's apartment.

In the world of Bagels the police are also bent.
In the world of Vixen, the Italian courts are bent, and easily influenced by Mafia-led, Mason-financied, American-media directing conspiracies.

By the way, in what way does bleach smell at Raffaele's have to do with a murder 4 days' previous? Aside from this, your post above is a word salad that doesn't mean anything, much less point to anything.
__________________
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 15th November 2019, 05:29 AM   #251
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,307
Bleach.

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-G...ucts/260550096
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 15th November 2019, 05:47 AM   #252
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 545
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You don't need to be a genius to spot there was a clean up.
But somehow you think there was.
whoanellie 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 15th November 2019, 05:51 AM   #253
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 545
Vixen the chemist.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In the USA what you call bleach we call 'Flash'.

'Bleach' as you know is just a 'color brightener' not a peroxide or ammonium colour-stripping lightener.
In the US, bleach typically refers to chlorine bleach, sodium hypochlorite. There is no ammonium bleach. Mixing ammonia and chlorine bleach can be deadly.
whoanellie 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 15th November 2019, 09:12 AM   #254
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Plus there is only two thirds of a bloodied footprint on the bathmat.

You don't need to be a genius to spot there was a clean up.

Why was the bathmat still there after said "clean up"?
AnimalFriendly 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 15th November 2019, 09:27 AM   #255
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,384
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The flooring at Via Pergola 7 was terracotta tiling (possibly fake).
And you mention this because?

Quote:
However, a set of one-sided footprints were highlighted, together with the bare feet of Knox and Sollecito, when luminol was applied.
No, unidentified bare feet prints were highlighted. They were NOT positively identified. Prove they don't belonged to Meredith and Giacomo.

Quote:
Plus there is only two thirds of a bloodied footprint on the bathmat.
It's a very thick bath mat. Unless someone is applying weight to their heel, it's very likely the heel never made contact with the floor. It's certainly not evidence of a clean-up.

Quote:
You don't need to be a genius to spot there was a clean up.
You're right, indications of a clean-up are typically rather obvious... indications such as swirl marks that light up with Luminol, and and absence of clearly defined shapes, such as foot prints, which would have been destroyed as they were wiped up. You've been told this numerous times yet you still don't seem to understand it.

Quote:
Police testified there was a 'strong smell of bleach' when they entered Raff's apartment.
Two problems with this; one, the crime, and therefore the need for a clean-up, took place at the cottage, not Raffaele's apartment and two, the "strong smell of bleach" was detected the day AFTER Raffaele's cleaning lady had cleaned his apartment. So anything the police smelled was the result of this cleaning, not something Raffaele or Amanda did four days prior.

Quote:
In the world of Bagels the police are also bent.
This is a priceless quote coming from someone who has spent years claiming courts, including the Supreme Court, a hall of fame lineup of forensic experts, retired FBI agents, crime scene experts, coercive interrogation experts and others involved in law enforcement, etc., are all "bent"
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 15th November 2019, 10:11 AM   #256
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,384
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
Why was the bathmat still there after said "clean up"?
...or why wasn't the bathmat clean and wet with bleach when found?

Specific to the story bagels posted, a REAL clean-up leaves very obvious signs. If there had been a clean-up, that print wouldn't have been on the mat and the mat would have been soaked with either water or bleach.

This continues to be one of the major flaws in the pro-guilt argument. They are very selective in their interpretation. That there was no heel print on the tile is, to them, clear indication of a clean-up, yet they ignore that the rest of the bloody print on the mat remained untouched, which is a clear indication there wasn't a clean-up.
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 15th November 2019, 10:41 AM   #257
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 545
Don't forget the poop in the toilet. Clear sign of a clean up.
whoanellie 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 15th November 2019, 10:47 AM   #258
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Those interested in UK standards for DNA STR profiling in forensics may wish to see the following:

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/abo...for-courts.pdf

Here's two quotes from the above source:

"The frequency of occurrence of a specific allele (ie a specific number of repeating units) at the tested locus in a specific population provides a measure of how common that allele is in that population. This information is essential for calculating match probabilities. If only one STR were analysed, there would be many people with the same allele, purely by chance. It is therefore necessary to analyse a number of different STR loci to ensure that the chance of two unrelated people having matching DNA profiles is very small. Over time, the number of different STR loci analysed has increased as technology has developed. Since 2014 in the UK, 16 loci are examined. In some Scottish cases, 23 loci are examined."

"The principal method of forensic DNA analysis is to consider the profile of the STRs. If only one STR section of DNA were analysed, many people would share the same DNA profile. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse a number of different STRs to ensure that the chance of two unrelated people’s STR profiles matching is acceptably small. Over time, the number of STRs analysed in human DNA profiling has been increased to the point that the chance of two unrelated people sharing the same DNA profile has become infinitesimally small. Table 1 illustrates the evolution of the numbers of STRs analysed. There are various commercial analytical kits containing the chemicals required for the analysis of groups of STRs at the same time. These kits are called multiplexes. In addition to the STRs, each of the systems also includes a test to determine whether the sample comes from a male or a female."

The UK used 10 loci in their DNA profile testing prior to 2014, but abandoned that as inadequate, and since 2014 have used 16 loci in their DNA profile testing. In Scotland, 23 loci are used. (See Appendix A1.2 of the source.)

To propose, as some PGP apparently do, that a partial match of DNA profiles is evidence of identity is absurd.

In analogy, suppose we encounter persons named "John Allen Johnson", "John Brian Johnson", and "John Bryan Johnson". Should we then suppose that any two these three John Johnsons are the same person? Similarly, if two DNA profiles of 16 loci each happen to be identical in some 10, 11, or even 15 loci, should they be assumed to come from the same individual?

It is clear that one cannot make that assumption; if two individuals are shown to be different in even one DNA locus of, for example, 16 STR loci, they are obviously different persons. If two individuals were the same in all 16 STR loci, there would be a strong probability that they were identical twins.
Some relevant statements from the Royal Society, from their publication Forensic DNA analysis: a primer for courts, November 2017, by the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh in conjunction with the Judicial College, the Judicial Institute, and the Judicial Studies Board for Northern Ireland:

"Laboratories recognise that contamination can occur between people, consumables and other items in the forensic process. The working practices of labs are geared to prevent contamination and to detect it, should it happen. The use of appropriate controls and testing provides assurances that the general risks of contamination are minimised.

Even with all these precautions, the sensitivity of DNA profiling methods means that sometimes contaminating DNA will still be seen. This may either be as a complete or nearly complete profile, or merely one or two peaks (alleles). In the latter case, this type of very minimal contamination is known as ‘drop-in.’ A suggestion that contamination has adversely affected any particular case is dealt with by assessing the information available relating to the continuity of the specific evidence and evaluating particular scenarios." (p. 32-33)

"If there is a perfect match between the STR profiles of two DNA samples, then there are three possible explanations:

1. the suspect is the source of the material at the crime scene

2. the material came from a second person who has an identical DNA profile

3. the match is a false positive due to a sample switch or some other kind of error {for example, contamination}." (p. 34)

Relevance:

Stefanoni provided no information on how her lab avoided or minimized contamination. She refused to provide raw DNA data and she refused to provide the results from almost all of the control samples; this is the information required to evaluate the possibility of contamination. From DVD images provided by the police, it is clear that key samples, including the bra clasp, were collected improperly, in a way that would tend to result in contamination. Stefanoni arbitrarily ran DNA profiling one key sample that showed DNA "too low" to be detectable (on her non-validated measuring equipment) while not running DNA profiling on other samples producing that "too low". The collected key DNA evidence items (bra clasp and knife) were not stored properly prior to lab analysis - that is, they were stored in ways that could increase the probability of contamination. The chain of custody transfers for the DNA evidence were not properly documented.

Stefanoni misinterpreted results (the electropherograms of the DNA profiling) by intentionally not calling out DNA allele peaks that did not match the DNA profile of Sollecito on the bra clasp. Those additional not otherwise explained peaks, from several males (they were detected in the profiling of the Y chromosome STRs), mean that that the DNA allegedly obtained from the bra clasp was contaminated.

DNA quantification results, of the few supplied by Stefanoni, from several of the controls (negative and positive) showed contamination.

As noted in the Royal Society primer, a DNA match of two distinct profiles - on all loci tested - has potential value as evidence, if possibilities (2) or (3) can be eliminated. A partial "match" of the STRs for some loci, where the other STR loci don't match, means that the DNA came from two different individuals.

Source: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/abo...for-courts.pdf

Last edited by Numbers; 15th November 2019 at 11:10 AM.
Numbers 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 15th November 2019, 12:22 PM   #259
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Some relevant statements from the Royal Society, from their publication Forensic DNA analysis: a primer for courts, November 2017, by the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh in conjunction with the Judicial College, the Judicial Institute, and the Judicial Studies Board for Northern Ireland:

"Laboratories recognise that contamination can occur between people, consumables and other items in the forensic process. The working practices of labs are geared to prevent contamination and to detect it, should it happen. The use of appropriate controls and testing provides assurances that the general risks of contamination are minimised.

Even with all these precautions, the sensitivity of DNA profiling methods means that sometimes contaminating DNA will still be seen. This may either be as a complete or nearly complete profile, or merely one or two peaks (alleles). In the latter case, this type of very minimal contamination is known as ‘drop-in.’ A suggestion that contamination has adversely affected any particular case is dealt with by assessing the information available relating to the continuity of the specific evidence and evaluating particular scenarios." (p. 32-33)

"If there is a perfect match between the STR profiles of two DNA samples, then there are three possible explanations:

1. the suspect is the source of the material at the crime scene

2. the material came from a second person who has an identical DNA profile

3. the match is a false positive due to a sample switch or some other kind of error {for example, contamination}." (p. 34)

Relevance:

Stefanoni provided no information on how her lab avoided or minimized contamination. She refused to provide raw DNA data and she refused to provide the results from almost all of the control samples; this is the information required to evaluate the possibility of contamination. From DVD images provided by the police, it is clear that key samples, including the bra clasp, were collected improperly, in a way that would tend to result in contamination. Stefanoni arbitrarily ran DNA profiling one key sample that showed DNA "too low" to be detectable (on her non-validated measuring equipment) while not running DNA profiling on other samples producing that "too low". The collected key DNA evidence items (bra clasp and knife) were not stored properly prior to lab analysis - that is, they were stored in ways that could increase the probability of contamination. The chain of custody transfers for the DNA evidence were not properly documented.

Stefanoni misinterpreted results (the electropherograms of the DNA profiling) by intentionally not calling out DNA allele peaks that did not match the DNA profile of Sollecito on the bra clasp. Those additional not otherwise explained peaks, from several males (they were detected in the profiling of the Y chromosome STRs), mean that that the DNA allegedly obtained from the bra clasp was contaminated.

DNA quantification results, of the few supplied by Stefanoni, from several of the controls (negative and positive) showed contamination.

As noted in the Royal Society primer, a DNA match of two distinct profiles - on all loci tested - has potential value as evidence, if possibilities (2) or (3) can be eliminated. A partial "match" of the STRs for some loci, where the other STR loci don't match, means that the DNA came from two different individuals.

Source: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/abo...for-courts.pdf
One further comment on the DNA testing and analysis of the knife and bra clasp as conducted and reported by Stefanoni:

Conti and Vecchiotti, consultants for the Hellmann Court of Appeal (not for the defense), provided a report on Stefanoni's methods, results, and data interpretations. The C-V report* was devastating to the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito. C and V did some technical examinations that cast serious doubts on her results, but their technical review of Stefanoni's work and results were entirely convincing.

While PGP may claim that the C-V report was somehow quashed when the Chieffi CSC panel quashed the Hellmann Appeal Court's provisional acquittal, this is false. The C-V report remains in the file as evidence. Furthermore, the points raised by C-V relate to Stefanoni's work and results, which also remain in the file. Thus, any unbiased expert in DNA profiling can view Stefanoni's work and results and will necessarily reach the same conclusions as C-V. For example, the extra peaks in the bra clasp Y-DNA results are clear and convincing evidence of additional unknown males contributing DNA to those results. Given the nature of the evidence, including its defects in chain of custody and handling, and the prosecution theory of the crime, that can only mean that the bra clasp results show contamination. That is, there can be no precise certainty that Sollecito touched the clasp. Therefore, under Italian law, the clasp "evidence" cannot be used to infer a "fact" to be used against Sollecito.

*See: https://knoxdnareport.files.wordpres...ti-report2.pdf

This version of the translation includes tables and figures taken from Stefanoni's data that are highly useful in following the arguments of C-V showing the defects in the data.

Last edited by Numbers; 15th November 2019 at 12:24 PM.
Numbers 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 15th November 2019, 12:33 PM   #260
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,924
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The flooring at Via Pergola 7 was terracotta tiling (possibly fake).
To be precise, Filomena's room floor was not terracotta tiling but terrazzo.

Quote:
However, a set of one-sided footprints were highlighted, together with the bare feet of Knox and Sollecito, when luminol was applied.
Footsteps that tested negative for blood or DNA. Thus, they could not be proved to be Knox's or Sollecito's or even connected to the crime. The female footprints could have belong to any of the 4 girls living in the apartment left at any time prior to the murder. The male footprints could have been Giacomo's or even "Daniel's". It doesn't go unnoticed that you always bring up the luminol, but never the TMB negative tests.



Quote:
Plus there is only two thirds of a bloodied footprint on the bathmat.
I once asked you why Sollecito and Knox would not only leave such a damning piece of evidence against Sollecito (if it were his), but point it out to the police. Your answer was that the pair, thinking they were so clever, wanted to 'put one over' on the police. If this were so, why clean up the bloody heel mark (if there were one)? What would be the purpose? Additionally, cleaning the "heel" blood visible to the naked eye would still leave blood that luminol would reveal. None was.


Quote:
You don't need to be a genius to spot there was a clean up.
And yet....no evidence that any clean up occurred was presented by the prosecution. Evidence that would have been revealed by luminol. In fact, the fingerprint expert testified he saw no evidence of any effort to clean up fingerprints and forensic experts testified it's impossible to selectively remove the DNA or fingerprints which are invisible to the naked eye. It doesn't take a genius to understand why.

Quote:
Police testified there was a 'strong smell of bleach' when they entered Raff's apartment.
The police assumed it was bleach. What bleach did they use? The same 1 1/2 bottles that the maid testified were there before the murder were still there. The maid never said she smelled bleach before she cleaned the house the day before the police claimed to smell it. But she did clean the house with Lysoform. If the police claimed that there was a strong odor of bleach the day after she cleaned, why didn't the maid smell it herself? Doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Quote:
In the world of Bagels the police are also bent.
Aside from the glaringly obvious irony of that statement, exactly where in Bagel's post does he say or imply that the police were 'bent'? But you're not going to answer that, are you?

The police did smell something: Lysoform. They were just wrong in their assumption of its source.
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 15th November 2019, 12:58 PM   #261
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,924
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In the USA what you call bleach we call 'Flash'.

'Bleach' as you know is just a 'color brightener' not a peroxide or ammonium colour-stripping lightener.
What nonsense! 'Flash' is an all purpose cleaning product. It is NOT what we call "bleach". Bleach is not a 'color brightener'. You don't use bleach with any fabric color other than white unless you want to strip the color.

Flash ingredients: <5% Anionic Surfactants, Non-Ionic Surfactants, Phosphonates, Benzisothiazolinone, Perfumes, Citral, Citronellol, Geraniol, Hexyl cinnamal, Limonene, Linalool


Chlorine bleach usually contains sodium hypochlorite. Oxygen bleach contains hydrogen peroxide or a peroxide-releasing compound such as sodium perborate or sodium percarbonate.
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 15th November 2019, 01:17 PM   #262
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,384
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
.
.
.
The police did smell something: Lysoform. They were just wrong in their assumption of its source.
Of course, one could forgive the police for coming to an incorrect conclusion, but for the prosecution and the pro-guilt community to continue to repeat this conclusion after it was determined the cleaning lady had cleaned the house using lysoform the day before the visit by the police, speaks to the intellectual honesty, if not the desperation of these people.
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 15th November 2019, 02:00 PM   #263
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,649
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Some relevant statements from the Royal Society, from their publication Forensic DNA analysis: a primer for courts, November 2017, by the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh in conjunction with the Judicial College, the Judicial Institute, and the Judicial Studies Board for Northern Ireland:

"Laboratories recognise that contamination can occur between people, consumables and other items in the forensic process. The working practices of labs are geared to prevent contamination and to detect it, should it happen. The use of appropriate controls and testing provides assurances that the general risks of contamination are minimised.

Even with all these precautions, the sensitivity of DNA profiling methods means that sometimes contaminating DNA will still be seen. This may either be as a complete or nearly complete profile, or merely one or two peaks (alleles). In the latter case, this type of very minimal contamination is known as ‘drop-in.’ A suggestion that contamination has adversely affected any particular case is dealt with by assessing the information available relating to the continuity of the specific evidence and evaluating particular scenarios." (p. 32-33)

"If there is a perfect match between the STR profiles of two DNA samples, then there are three possible explanations:

1. the suspect is the source of the material at the crime scene

2. the material came from a second person who has an identical DNA profile

3. the match is a false positive due to a sample switch or some other kind of error {for example, contamination}." (p. 34)

Relevance:

Stefanoni provided no information on how her lab avoided or minimized contamination. She refused to provide raw DNA data and she refused to provide the results from almost all of the control samples; this is the information required to evaluate the possibility of contamination. From DVD images provided by the police, it is clear that key samples, including the bra clasp, were collected improperly, in a way that would tend to result in contamination. Stefanoni arbitrarily ran DNA profiling one key sample that showed DNA "too low" to be detectable (on her non-validated measuring equipment) while not running DNA profiling on other samples producing that "too low". The collected key DNA evidence items (bra clasp and knife) were not stored properly prior to lab analysis - that is, they were stored in ways that could increase the probability of contamination. The chain of custody transfers for the DNA evidence were not properly documented.

Stefanoni misinterpreted results (the electropherograms of the DNA profiling) by intentionally not calling out DNA allele peaks that did not match the DNA profile of Sollecito on the bra clasp. Those additional not otherwise explained peaks, from several males (they were detected in the profiling of the Y chromosome STRs), mean that that the DNA allegedly obtained from the bra clasp was contaminated.

DNA quantification results, of the few supplied by Stefanoni, from several of the controls (negative and positive) showed contamination.

As noted in the Royal Society primer, a DNA match of two distinct profiles - on all loci tested - has potential value as evidence, if possibilities (2) or (3) can be eliminated. A partial "match" of the STRs for some loci, where the other STR loci don't match, means that the DNA came from two different individuals.

Source: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/abo...for-courts.pdf
Stop besmirching Stefanoni. Just because she identified incriminating DNA belonging to your heroes.

Stefanoni literally dealt with hundreds of cases a year. She had zero motive to frame anyone, let alone one of her fellow countrymen.
__________________
Do you curse where you come from, Do you swear in the night
Will it mean much to you, If I treat you right.
Do you like what you're doing, Would you do it some more
Or will you stop once and wonder
What you're doing it for. ~ Nick Drake
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 15th November 2019, 02:05 PM   #264
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,649
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
One further comment on the DNA testing and analysis of the knife and bra clasp as conducted and reported by Stefanoni:

Conti and Vecchiotti, consultants for the Hellmann Court of Appeal (not for the defense), provided a report on Stefanoni's methods, results, and data interpretations. The C-V report* was devastating to the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito. C and V did some technical examinations that cast serious doubts on her results, but their technical review of Stefanoni's work and results were entirely convincing.

While PGP may claim that the C-V report was somehow quashed when the Chieffi CSC panel quashed the Hellmann Appeal Court's provisional acquittal, this is false. The C-V report remains in the file as evidence. Furthermore, the points raised by C-V relate to Stefanoni's work and results, which also remain in the file. Thus, any unbiased expert in DNA profiling can view Stefanoni's work and results and will necessarily reach the same conclusions as C-V. For example, the extra peaks in the bra clasp Y-DNA results are clear and convincing evidence of additional unknown males contributing DNA to those results. Given the nature of the evidence, including its defects in chain of custody and handling, and the prosecution theory of the crime, that can only mean that the bra clasp results show contamination. That is, there can be no precise certainty that Sollecito touched the clasp. Therefore, under Italian law, the clasp "evidence" cannot be used to infer a "fact" to be used against Sollecito.

*See: https://knoxdnareport.files.wordpres...ti-report2.pdf

This version of the translation includes tables and figures taken from Stefanoni's data that are highly useful in following the arguments of C-V showing the defects in the data.
Vecchiotti and Conti unethcially and unprofessionally advocated for the defence. Vecchiotti was caught red-handed by the Carabinieri making a CD video for the defence; the pair were seen wining and dining with Maori, Sollecito's counsel and were seen warmly greeting members of the Sollecito family (Vanessa, Francesco) in court.

In England that would have contravened Bar Standards and they would have been struck off.

They even appeared in the Neflix film, with Conti openly advocating for the pair.
__________________
Do you curse where you come from, Do you swear in the night
Will it mean much to you, If I treat you right.
Do you like what you're doing, Would you do it some more
Or will you stop once and wonder
What you're doing it for. ~ Nick Drake
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 15th November 2019, 02:09 PM   #265
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,649
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
To be precise, Filomena's room floor was not terracotta tiling but terrazzo.



Footsteps that tested negative for blood or DNA. Thus, they could not be proved to be Knox's or Sollecito's or even connected to the crime. The female footprints could have belong to any of the 4 girls living in the apartment left at any time prior to the murder. The male footprints could have been Giacomo's or even "Daniel's". It doesn't go unnoticed that you always bring up the luminol, but never the TMB negative tests.





I once asked you why Sollecito and Knox would not only leave such a damning piece of evidence against Sollecito (if it were his), but point it out to the police. Your answer was that the pair, thinking they were so clever, wanted to 'put one over' on the police. If this were so, why clean up the bloody heel mark (if there were one)? What would be the purpose? Additionally, cleaning the "heel" blood visible to the naked eye would still leave blood that luminol would reveal. None was.




And yet....no evidence that any clean up occurred was presented by the prosecution. Evidence that would have been revealed by luminol. In fact, the fingerprint expert testified he saw no evidence of any effort to clean up fingerprints and forensic experts testified it's impossible to selectively remove the DNA or fingerprints which are invisible to the naked eye. It doesn't take a genius to understand why.



The police assumed it was bleach. What bleach did they use? The same 1 1/2 bottles that the maid testified were there before the murder were still there. The maid never said she smelled bleach before she cleaned the house the day before the police claimed to smell it. But she did clean the house with Lysoform. If the police claimed that there was a strong odor of bleach the day after she cleaned, why didn't the maid smell it herself? Doesn't take a genius to figure that out.



Aside from the glaringly obvious irony of that statement, exactly where in Bagel's post does he say or imply that the police were 'bent'? But you're not going to answer that, are you?

The police did smell something: Lysoform. They were just wrong in their assumption of its source.
Would could should. If my uncle had tits he'd be my aunt.
__________________
Do you curse where you come from, Do you swear in the night
Will it mean much to you, If I treat you right.
Do you like what you're doing, Would you do it some more
Or will you stop once and wonder
What you're doing it for. ~ Nick Drake
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 15th November 2019, 03:41 PM   #266
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
What nonsense! 'Flash' is an all purpose cleaning product. It is NOT what we call "bleach". Bleach is not a 'color brightener'. You don't use bleach with any fabric color other than white unless you want to strip the color.

Flash ingredients: <5% Anionic Surfactants, Non-Ionic Surfactants, Phosphonates, Benzisothiazolinone, Perfumes, Citral, Citronellol, Geraniol, Hexyl cinnamal, Limonene, Linalool


Chlorine bleach usually contains sodium hypochlorite. Oxygen bleach contains hydrogen peroxide or a peroxide-releasing compound such as sodium perborate or sodium percarbonate.
Cleaning laboratory bench surfaces (2 cm2 samples), previously intentionally coated with known amounts of DNA, with a sodium hypochlorite solution* can remove all traces of amplifiable DNA, according to this article:

https://www.fsigeneticssup.com/artic...269-X/fulltext

Decrease DNA contamination in the laboratories

* Contained in the commercially available bleach "Klorrent"**

** https://mediacache3.icmsafety.com/v-...1664756_gb.pdf

One important point - the bleach treatment prevented any DNA on the surfaces from being detected by amplification under PCR. It would be impossible to selectively clean an individual's DNA from a crime scene, because there is no way to distinguish the DNA or cells of one person from another without specialized laboratory equipment and chemicals, and, of course, appropriate training.

Last edited by Numbers; 15th November 2019 at 03:51 PM.
Numbers 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 15th November 2019, 04:09 PM   #267
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Vecchiotti and Conti unethcially and unprofessionally advocated for the defence. Vecchiotti was caught red-handed by the Carabinieri making a CD video for the defence; the pair were seen wining and dining with Maori, Sollecito's counsel and were seen warmly greeting members of the Sollecito family (Vanessa, Francesco) in court.

In England that would have contravened Bar Standards and they would have been struck off.

They even appeared in the Neflix film, with Conti openly advocating for the pair.
Evidence for the highlighted parts, please...
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
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 15th November 2019, 04:31 PM   #268
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,387
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Evidence for the highlighted parts, please...
The evidence for Vixen's inflated claims comes from the Kercher lawyer, Maresca. Maresca, and apparently Vixen, cannot put any of this into a proper context to give it any meaning other than their own fantasy claims.
__________________
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 15th November 2019, 04:34 PM   #269
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,387
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stop besmirching Stefanoni. Just because she identified incriminating DNA belonging to your heroes.

Stefanoni literally dealt with hundreds of cases a year. She had zero motive to frame anyone, let alone one of her fellow countrymen.
You lose me the second you engage in inflated hyperbole.

You say she had zero motive to frame people.... what, then, was her motive for handling evidence with dirty gloves and then filming herself doing it?

__________________
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 15th November 2019, 04:35 PM   #270
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,193
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The flooring at Via Pergola 7 was terracotta tiling (possibly fake). However, a set of one-sided footprints were highlighted, together with the bare feet of Knox and Sollecito, when luminol was applied.

Plus there is only two thirds of a bloodied footprint on the bathmat.

You don't need to be a genius to spot there was a clean up.

Police testified there was a 'strong smell of bleach' when they entered Raff's apartment.

In the world of Bagels the police are also bent.
The police interviewed Quintavalle (among other shops in the area) after arresting Raff and discovering a large supply of bleach. He told them he did not see Amanda or Raffaele in his store anytime after the murder. Raffaele's maid testified the bleach was there long before the murder. Nobody claimed to smell bleach or any cleaning products at the actual crime scene, and there were large visible prints all over, ie there wasn't a cleanup.

There's a phrase for evidence that doesn't lead to corroboration: a dead end. The guilter (and prosecution) approach to this case is to stack together a dozen+ dead ends and go "combined they actually go somewhere, somehow." In fact I literally think Chieffi or someone makes that argument.
bagels 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 15th November 2019, 04:36 PM   #271
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,387
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Vecchiotti and Conti unethcially and unprofessionally advocated for the defence. Vecchiotti was caught red-handed by the Carabinieri making a CD video for the defence; the pair were seen wining and dining with Maori, Sollecito's counsel and were seen warmly greeting members of the Sollecito family (Vanessa, Francesco) in court.

In England that would have contravened Bar Standards and they would have been struck off.

They even appeared in the Neflix film, with Conti openly advocating for the pair.
The evidence advocated for the defence.
__________________
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 15th November 2019, 04:36 PM   #272
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,924
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Would could should. If my uncle had tits he'd be my aunt.
And if you had a credible and logical counterargument, you'd present it. Instead you post this nonsense.
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 15th November 2019, 05:15 PM   #273
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,924
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Vecchiotti and Conti unethcially and unprofessionally advocated for the defence. Vecchiotti was caught red-handed by the Carabinieri making a CD video for the defence;
>snip> .
I feel like I'm in the movie Groundhog Day. Your claim regarding the CD has already been disproved but, like the movie, let's relive it again. From last December (link at bottom of page):

Quote:
You just never learn, do you? We've discussed this lie before. But here for you once again from 4 August 2017 #256 Continuation 26:

1) the DVD was appropriately filed with the Perugia Court of Appeals, 2) that the carabinieri were sent by the prosecution to seize the DNA from Vecchiotti but could not as they had no warrant to do so, and 3) that the prosecutor applied to get a copy of the DVD from Hellmann and he granted it.

Quote:
La Corte d'assise di appello di Perugia ha disposto il deposito di un dvd utilizzato nel corso dell'ultima udienza dai periti che hanno lavorato sulle tracce genetiche nell'ambito del processo a Raffaele Sollecito e ad Amanda Knox per l'omicidio di Meredith Kercher.

Sul supporto informatico, acquisito dalla polizia scientifica su autorizzazione del presidente del collegio giudicante dietro richiesta della procura generale, le immagini del sopralluogo nella casa del delitto. Ieri, quindi, personale della scientifica si e' recato nei laboratori romani dove lavorano gli esperti per acquisire il materiale.

Il processo riprendera' sabato proprio con il controesame dei
http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/mer...la-scientifica

English:

Quote:
The Perugia Court of Appeal ordered the filing of a dvd used during the last hearing by experts who worked on genetic traces in the trial of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher .

On the computer support, acquired by the scientific police on the permission of the chairman of the board of judges at the request of the general prosecutor, the images of the inspection in the house of the crime. Yesterday, therefore, scientists' staff went to the Roman laboratories where experts work to acquire the material.

The process will resume on Saturdays with the counter-exam of experts.
AND


Quote:
Perugia. July 27th (Adnkronos)

The DVD used by the two experts Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti has been lodged with the office of the clerk of the Appeal Court of Perugia, in the ambit of the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The images have also been acquired by the Scientific Police with a specific authorisation of the court.

The Prosecutor’s Office of Perugia had requested that the DVD be lodged in view of the hearing on Saturday during which the experts will be questioned by magistrate Manuela Comodi.

In the DVD clips of the video can be seen, made on the occasion of the on-the-spot investigation of the crime house and some excerpts of the records of the hearing during which the scientific police were describing the work they carried out. The two experts have claimed that the work of the scientific branch is unreliable and that the results are untrustworthy. The prosecution supports the correct operation of the scientific police and is ready to demonstrate this to the judges of the court.
http://www.libero-news.it/news/79207...ai-periti.html

Odd how a DVD that was presented in court the previous day was "secret" and made only for the defense. The prosecutor tried to seize the DVD without a warrant from Vecchiotti's office. She then called Hellmann to ascertain whether she could/should hand over the DVD to the police. He gave her permission as the presiding judge. Your misrepresentation of the event is nothing short of jaw dropping...but hardly surprising.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post12521108

Last edited by Stacyhs; 15th November 2019 at 05:18 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 15th November 2019, 05:54 PM   #274
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,924
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Vecchiotti and Conti unethcially and unprofessionally advocated for the defence. >snip<... the pair were seen wining and dining with Maori, Sollecito's counsel and were seen warmly greeting members of the Sollecito family (Vanessa, Francesco) in court.

In England that would have contravened Bar Standards and they would have been struck off.

They even appeared in the Neflix film, with Conti openly advocating for the pair.
Back to the "wining and dining" false claim again, I see.

From Barbie Nadeau's book, Angel Face:

Quote:
'Concern that the independent experts weren’t so independent after all spread quickly after several journalists saw Vecchiotti with Raffaele’s lawyer Luca Maori in the courthouse halls and coffee bars of Perugia.'
Oh my goodness! Vecchiotti was seen talking to Maori IN PUBLIC in the courthouse halls and at a coffee bar! Shades of collusion! I didn't realize 'wining and dining' in Italy took place in courthouse halls and coffee bars. I can hear it now:

Maori sidles up to Prof. Vecchiotti and whispers to her: Pssssst, Carla...I can call you Carla, can't I? Here's a nice espresso. If you play your cards right, there could be more of these for you in the future. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

I'd bet you can't provide any actual evidence that Maori was "wining and dining" Conti and Vecchiotti. I'd bet you took that Nadeau quote and gave it the Vixen Special Spin. I'd also bet that you did the exact same thing with your "(C & V) were seen warmly greeting members of the Sollecito family (Vanessa, Francesco) in court" bit. Wanna prove me wrong? You know how: provide evidence.
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 15th November 2019, 06:03 PM   #275
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,924
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stop besmirching Stefanoni.
Relating the facts as found by C&V (and many other forensic experts) is not 'besmirching' Stefanoni.

Quote:
Just because she identified incriminating DNA belonging to your heroes.
Just stop with this kind of childish nonsense.

Quote:
Stefanoni literally dealt with hundreds of cases a year.
So? That does not make her screw ups on this case any less screw ups.

Quote:
She had zero motive to frame anyone, let alone one of her fellow countrymen.
Who said she was 'framing' anyone? Not me. I just think she screwed up big time on this case . Or do you thinking failing to change her gloves between handling evidence is proper procedure? Or allowing the bra hook to be stored improperly leading to it rusting? Or failing to reveal several TMB negative tests on extremely important pieces of evidence?
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 15th November 2019, 06:07 PM   #276
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,350
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Back to the "wining and dining" false claim again, I see.

From Barbie Nadeau's book, Angel Face:



Oh my goodness! Vecchiotti was seen talking to Maori IN PUBLIC in the courthouse halls and at a coffee bar! Shades of collusion! I didn't realize 'wining and dining' in Italy took place in courthouse halls and coffee bars. I can hear it now:

Maori sidles up to Prof. Vecchiotti and whispers to her: Pssssst, Carla...I can call you Carla, can't I? Here's a nice espresso. If you play your cards right, there could be more of these for you in the future. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

I'd bet you can't provide any actual evidence that Maori was "wining and dining" Conti and Vecchiotti. I'd bet you took that Nadeau quote and gave it the Vixen Special Spin. I'd also bet that you did the exact same thing with your "(C & V) were seen warmly greeting members of the Sollecito family (Vanessa, Francesco) in court" bit. Wanna prove me wrong? You know how: provide evidence.


Yep. Firstly, you've got to love Nadeau's evidence-free hearsay along the lines of "oh I hear that several journalists say they saw...."

And secondly, as you point out, it's absolutely no evidence of malpractice whatsoever even if Vecchiotti had talked with Maori and had one or more cups of coffee with him. For Nadeau to have claimed that such hearsay "evidence", if true, somehow compromised Vecchiotti's position or her professional integrity is laughable - and it's yet another indicator of exactly how poor and unbalanced a stringer Nadeau is/was.
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 15th November 2019, 06:19 PM   #277
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,350
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Who said she was 'framing' anyone? Not me. I just think she screwed up big time on this case . Or do you thinking failing to change her gloves between handling evidence is proper procedure? Or allowing the bra hook to be stored improperly leading to it rusting? Or failing to reveal several TMB negative tests on extremely important pieces of evidence?

Exactly. The pro-guilt mentality on this issue (and others) seems to be that the only way anyone involved with the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito might be wrong is if they were actively trying to frame the two. And I think the pro-guilt community know exactly what they're doing by creating this stupid strawman: they are deliberately creating a false dichotomy. Maybe it helps them to rationalise the situation as well.....

But as you correctly point out, there's absolutely no need for any "framing" to be at work here*. All there needs to be (and what there actually is in this instance) is incompetence, improper suspect-centric analysis, confirmation bias and tunnel vision. Stefanoni patently had no idea about how to perform low-template DNA analysis correctly, and she then went on to lie, divert and obfuscate about how she'd arrived at her "results" and the accuracy/reliability of her findings. And - as you also point out above - she and her team of goons manifestly had no idea about how to collect forensic evidence at a crime scene. Fortunately for justice, they took a video which exposed the egregious failings at the crime scene - failings which virtually ensured that much of Stefanoni's consequent lab work was entirely lacking in reliability and credibility before she even started.


* Although I would say that a very low-level and insidious form of "framing" almost certainly did take place in this case: Stefanoni was told exactly whom the police and PM wanted to find incriminating evidence against, and she was a colleague of the police. She also seemed to be a particular favourite of Mignini's for some reason (I suspect I may know at least in part the reason....). It's not really that hard to see how Stefanoni, in that context, might have had an incentive to give the PM and police the evidence they wanted.
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 16th November 2019, 12:42 AM   #278
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,924
From my post #273 above:
Quote:
1) the DVD was appropriately filed with the Perugia Court of Appeals, 2) that the carabinieri were sent by the prosecution to seize the DNA DVD from Vecchiotti but could not as they had no warrant to do so, and 3) that the prosecutor applied to get a copy of the DVD from Hellmann and he granted it.
Fixed the original typo.
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 16th November 2019, 04:35 AM   #279
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,649
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Back to the "wining and dining" false claim again, I see.

From Barbie Nadeau's book, Angel Face:



Oh my goodness! Vecchiotti was seen talking to Maori IN PUBLIC in the courthouse halls and at a coffee bar! Shades of collusion! I didn't realize 'wining and dining' in Italy took place in courthouse halls and coffee bars. I can hear it now:

Maori sidles up to Prof. Vecchiotti and whispers to her: Pssssst, Carla...I can call you Carla, can't I? Here's a nice espresso. If you play your cards right, there could be more of these for you in the future. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

I'd bet you can't provide any actual evidence that Maori was "wining and dining" Conti and Vecchiotti. I'd bet you took that Nadeau quote and gave it the Vixen Special Spin. I'd also bet that you did the exact same thing with your "(C & V) were seen warmly greeting members of the Sollecito family (Vanessa, Francesco) in court" bit. Wanna prove me wrong? You know how: provide evidence.
There is film footage of Conti doing exactly that. In the frame includes sister Vanessa, dad Francesco and lawyer Maori.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg vandc.jpg (41.9 KB, 9 views)
__________________
Do you curse where you come from, Do you swear in the night
Will it mean much to you, If I treat you right.
Do you like what you're doing, Would you do it some more
Or will you stop once and wonder
What you're doing it for. ~ Nick Drake
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 16th November 2019, 04:40 AM   #280
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,649
Imagine if Inspector Knacker of the Yard warmly greeted Ian Huntley or Levi Bellfield in court...?

Yet in the world of the FOAker all of this is perfectly normal.
__________________
Do you curse where you come from, Do you swear in the night
Will it mean much to you, If I treat you right.
Do you like what you're doing, Would you do it some more
Or will you stop once and wonder
What you're doing it for. ~ Nick Drake
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
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 04:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.